[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]

/k/ - Weapons

Salt raifus and raifu accessories
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf
Max filesize is16 MB.
Max image dimensions are15000 x15000.
You may upload5 per post.


There's no discharge in the war!

File: 134b3cb00a602d3⋯.jpg (92.56 KB,900x657,100:73,he177-dl-aq.jpg)

780852 No.638309 [Last50 Posts]

This is a bread to discuss military concepts, prototypes and final products apart from everyone's favorite 5th gen multirole fighter following questionable theories/doctrines with great investment put behind them only to end up as massive wastes of time, money and resources for everyone involved.

What was the RLM thinking when they not only wanted to make a strategic bomber, but make it an dive glidebomber so it needs to be twin engined because drag except we don't have any engines powerful enough so let's put two DB601s in each nacelle sharing a single propeller through an autistically complicated gearbox while negating any potential advantages regarding engine redundancy on top of creating considerable difficulties in engine cooling.

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3b6496 No.638491

File: fcaf512fa767534⋯.jpg (58.63 KB,1000x442,500:221,zrzh0oykie7im6555fdg.jpg)

File: 7298bb1376b850d⋯.jpg (52.98 KB,900x530,90:53,xb-70-douglas-castleman.jpg)

File: 322e8442d80842c⋯.jpg (218.95 KB,1360x1110,136:111,061122-F-1234P-012.JPG)

File: 3be5ce82d29a286⋯.jpg (100.56 KB,1024x523,1024:523,42030491462_480858bffa_b.jpg)

>spoiler

Then the F-111.

Similarly the XB-70 that even though it was a good design it was unfortunate to be made in the era when it was thought that ICBMs would soon fully replace strategic bombers.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8797ef No.638504

File: c2a2f5b5f00d7b2⋯.jpg (132.22 KB,1280x620,64:31,1.jpg)

File: e80e90a9ac809de⋯.jpg (49.54 KB,1800x303,600:101,2.jpg)

1: The Blish Menace and 2: The Return of Blish.

Very small scale compared to other wastes, but I can never get over the entire concept.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

82ed34 No.638602

File: cd25653d583cd66⋯.jpg (733.8 KB,2048x1514,1024:757,qr2FvZq.jpg)

Leopard 2R

>armored mine-clearing vehicle that is presumably supposed to move infront of tanks and other things, meaning that it's probably going to get shot at more than your average tank

>yet it is equipped with light turret armor, which probably can be penetrated by 12.7mm rounds

>no guns except for a single 12.7mm machine gun without a gun-shield or anything else that might protect the guy supposed to be using it

<atleast it looks kinda cool though

I have hard time figuring out as to under what circumstances this vehicle was considered to be a good idea.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bcc030 No.638604

File: e73f8195b2c782c⋯.jpg (45.78 KB,640x480,4:3,1.jpg)

>>638602

Not nearly as silly and impractical as the T15E1

>we gotta get rid of these mines!

>how about we just put on so much belly armor that it shrugs off those AT mines so you can just clear the field by hitting all of them!

It at least never saw actual field use, but I cant imagine what they would have to bribe the driver with to get him to do such a stupid job.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7d91af No.638613

>>638604

Can't be as goofy as the Aunt Jemima

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ac2034 No.638803

>>638604

Those weren't for clearing minefields, they were for finding the edge of the minefield so you could move the flail and plow tanks up to the front (and possibly also penetrating some distance into the minefield to cover the flail tanks while they worked).

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e9eb18 No.638818

File: 74878ca72f8c9c1⋯.jpg (132.55 KB,1000x603,1000:603,Airacuda_Bell_XFM-1_(15954….jpg)

File: 32ac09164b53fa2⋯.png (173.84 KB,442x332,221:166,ClipboardImage.png)

Perhaps my favorite oddball, the YFM-1 Airacuda, an American interwar bomber hunter armed with a pair of 37mm autocannons. Features include:

>cannot taxi under own power as engines will overheat

>too slow to catch the bombers it was intended to hunt

>loader/gunner pods fill with smoke when guns are fired

>if either engine fails, the aircraft goes into an immediate spin

>auxiliary generator powers everything, if it fails the plane effectively turns off entirely

>loader/gunners can't bail out unless props are feathered

>even when everything was fine, they still controlled like shit

I still love them.

>>638604

>silly and impractical minesweeper

You've got nothing on the Germans.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bcc030 No.638839

File: d8b7a7095ce6123⋯.jpg (23.12 KB,500x233,500:233,2.jpg)

>>638613

Aunt Jemima was goofy and nearly impossible to steer, but it could at least clear a safe path through a road or field as it had the fuckoff wide rollers to sweep with. This thing just has its standard width treads.

>>638803

How is a vehicle with no weapons but possibly a hull gun that never saw service supposed to cover for flail or roller tanks that actually retained their armament? The only book I have that mentioned it said it was simply to clear mines by hitting them so I would like a source on this other tactic.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7d91af No.638848

>>638818

>Airacuda

Its problems almost mirrors the F35.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

34bb24 No.638874

File: d13e7d9f638cbae⋯.jpg (49.91 KB,800x575,32:23,IWM-KID-109-Vickers-Indepe….jpg)

File: 4550e907344166f⋯.jpg (134.95 KB,1024x768,4:3,1024px-HOG_II_(4536666194).jpg)

The whole idea of Landships in the interwar era, at points they even considered giant movable "land docks" that the tanks would dock in for repairs.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c05231 No.638886

File: 2418fa726b71367⋯.png (229.69 KB,1001x611,77:47,messerschmitt-me-163-a-0-m….png)

Aerodynamic and Rocketry studies aside I can't really think how plane related was ever supposed to be viable in its intended role outside a fantasy world where the concept of bomber escorts didn't exist.

They should've put their effort into RATO instead, but alas.

>>638874

The naval Battleship autism of the 1920s made sense considering that Aircraft only became a serious threat to big boats during the late 1930s, but who in their right mind thought building-sized tanks wouldn't be a massive bomber+artillery magnet?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ac2034 No.638887

>>638839

Every source I could find describes the T15 as being simply a mine-resistant M4A2 rather than a dedicated mine-clearing vehicle, which to me suggests a role more along the lines of the British Matilda/Valentine AMRA.

The bit about fighting in minefields was just speculation on my part. Most of the flail and roller tanks couldn't defend themselves effectively because the mine-clearing gear blocked fire across most of their frontal arc, and in the flail's case also blinded the crew while it was running.

>>638818

The worst part about that whole design is that almost all of the problems you listed could be fixed by one simple modification (moving the guns from the nacelles to somewhere in the fuselage).

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

34bb24 No.638890

>>638886

>but who in their right mind thought building-sized tanks wouldn't be a massive bomber+artillery magnet?

I get the feeling the people who thought landships were a good idea are the same people who think Mecha's would be a good idea today.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

20a58f No.638893

>>638874

You have to remember that the tank doctrine of the interwar period only knew infantry and cavalry tanks. Even the Germans used it, as the Panzer III was meant to be the cavalry tank, and the Panzer IV's job was to support the infantry. Then the soviets made the T-34, a cavalry tank that could spearhead an attack or support the infantry, and that started an arms race that led to the MBT. But in the interwar period all of it was completely unimaginable, and you didn't even have light, medium and heavy tanks. In that context it wasn't that insane of an idea to make a mobile bunker.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

445aea No.638901

>>638874

>land dock

I'm going to need some recommended reading material on this. Also sponsons should never have gone away.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

531726 No.638902

>>638887

>moving the guns from the nacelles to somewhere in the fuselage

Apparently the gunners in the nacelles weren't even the ones firing them. They had the ability, but it was normally done by someone in the central fuselage, and the gunners just loaded the thing, which as far as I know is a role that usually isn't necessary. Meaning the entire concept of the crewed nacelles was useless in the first place, which in turns means you could make it tractor-driver and avoid the shitty flight characteristics and heating issues of a pusher, on top of saving two crew members' worth of weight, possibly making it fast enough to do its job.

The APU was just irredeemably retarded. There's no reason for it to be that way.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

34bb24 No.638907

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>638901

I'm fairly sure it was J. F. C. Fuller (interesting guy actually, big Hitler fan and occultist) who had the idea but I'm not 100% sure, I've read about it in a book years back but it comes up in this video at some point as well.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c05231 No.638947

File: e7f9b8387109173⋯.jpg (62.62 KB,700x554,350:277,semple-tank.jpg)

File: 2ab8b0d6b5e5fe1⋯.jpg (84.67 KB,700x537,700:537,semple rear.jpg)

It didn't cost a whole lot of money, time or resources to make but I think it still counts.

Was there anything better in terms of ghetto tank design New Zealand could've devised from locally available resouces that would've been capable of destroying/annoying invading Japanese tankettes?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1e423a No.638979

>>638309

>What was the RLM thinking

"Gee, wouldn't it be cool if we had a long-rang, high payload strategic bomber with divebombing accuracy?".

Same reason the early E series Do 217s had a tail mounted air break for dive bombing which was discontinued because it had a nasty habit of ripping the whole tail from the aircraft.

The biggest issue the Greif had was not immidiately ditching the dive bombing and redeveloping it into a four engine design (something that was explicit forbidden yet done by Heinkel on their own dime).

>>638886

Except bomber escorts were powerless against the rocket and jet aircraft, the real problem the 163 had was the small engagement window with the heavily arcing Mk108s, the nasty propellant and the short burn time.

Two of these could be rectified by giving it different guns and the more advanced version was supposed to be fitted with a seperate cruise engine with 8mins of fuel.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c05231 No.639003

>>638979

>bomber escorts were powerless against rocket aircraft

They weren't so powerless once the Me 163 had to glide back to base after expelling all of its fuel in a mere 7 minutes.

>Two of these could be rectified by giving it different guns and the more advanced version was supposed to be fitted with a seperate cruise engine with 8mins of fuel.

Don't forget actual landing gear.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

6eabf3 No.639042

>>638874

They may have been useless but i still love the concept, imagine on of those giant trucks they use for mining but with armor and turrets, slowly moving towards the enemy, have an enemy behemoth also approach to duel the first, would've been cool as fuck.

Also airships, but those are even less realistic.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c05231 No.639069

File: 884e64e425286bc⋯.jpg (414.98 KB,2000x1181,2000:1181,USS Macon docked.jpg)

File: 44dc962f254e173⋯.jpg (611.22 KB,2000x1601,2000:1601,USS Macon lewd.jpg)

>>639042

>airships

I'm still sad things like pics related weren't around during the great war.

If the Akron and Macon hadn't crashed with no survivors and lived to see Pearl Harbor, would they have had any viable use at that point in time?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7d91af No.639072

>>639069

>use

Yeah to be scrapped for the valuable aluminum frame like every other airship of the time.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c05231 No.639083

File: e049b4663873791⋯.jpg (144.69 KB,537x452,537:452,bullied so hard.jpg)

>>639072

Why is the world so cruel to rigid airships.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7d91af No.639084

>>639083

Because navy faggots need to stay on the ocean, don't need them gaying up the sky any worse than the chairforce does already.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

9689d2 No.639086

File: ddee08263cd2491⋯.jpeg (Spoiler Image,29.11 KB,480x360,4:3,seaman.jpeg)

>>639084

>>639083

airships are giant seamen balloons

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e9eb18 No.639111

>>639069

I'm willing to give a very hesitant maybe. They had damn long range and were considerably faster than any surface ship, so I suppose using them as a dedicated scout carrier isn't actually that bad of an idea. Problems I see is that with aircraft maintenance I don't see you being able to maintain their ability to do so unless you want to scout with the airship itself, which to me seems like inviting disaster. And of course, their materials were in high demand and I don't see two of them being enough.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

cbfbee No.639153

>>638901

>sponsons should never have gone away.

That reminds me: modern weapon stations should be armoured, so that they look like small turrets.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

9e895c No.639280

File: 06e440284680902⋯.jpg (116.73 KB,1280x810,128:81,VK4501_Tiger(P).jpg)

File: 5629af8083b1339⋯.png (651.94 KB,1327x658,1327:658,vk3001p.png)

File: 8d437df33d52644⋯.jpg (17.16 KB,478x202,239:101,image002.jpg)

Another questionable endavour would be Ferdinand Porsche and his attempts to build a tank with a gasoline-electric drive system.

While idea (simplify the drive system by omitting the gearbox transmission) was sound, all his attempts were hindered by high gasoline consumption, resource shortages and overheating problems.

>>639003

Still these would be alleviated by installing the new rocket motor with the cruise engine and pretty much all the redesigns (Me163 C/D and the 263) replaced the skid with proper landing gear.

The skid was a holdover from the aircraft being the result of glider research.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

cbfbee No.639286

>>639280

There were attempts even during ww1, but the technology was simply not there. What's even worse is that it's been ready for decades, just nobody bothered with it.

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/cobra-ifv

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/belgium/acec-cobra-tank-cobra-25-and-90

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f5997b No.639297

>>639111

Would they be any more resource intensive or vulnerable to attack than a surface ship of similar capability? The Macon carried five planes and had a length of 785 feet. I do wonder, for the planes carried, what would their minimum runway distance be on a traditional aircraft carrier?

We know from the Zeppelin bombing campaigns of WWI that a rigid airship, even a hydrogen one, can sustain a lot of small arms fire before going down. It wouldn't stand a chance against modern missile technology, but would it fare any worse than smaller navy vessels? How effective would CAWS systems be mounted on an airship? Are we in the wrong direction, and an airships true martial calling is as a floating artillery platform?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c05231 No.639347

>>639297

Burger airships were filled with Helium so they wouldn't have Hindenburg'd themselves even when hit by incendiary rounds, though I doubt they'd last long against 1940s autocannons.

Would the Macon have made for decent transport and supply ship/FoB for seaplane patrol bombers with most of its parasite aircraft removed?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2ee214 No.639447

>>638818

Why not just modify existing bombers into gunships for this role?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bcc030 No.639457

File: 30dabc235c5c9a8⋯.jpg (77.38 KB,864x691,864:691,blimp-landing-on-carrier.jpg)

>>639069

>>639111

>>639297

>>639347

They would have been lost to storms in the pacific if they were deployed there. Much like how all other rigid airships were lost to storms anywhere else during peacetime. The navy used non-rigid blimps to spot submarines and sweep for mines in all theaters with a VERY strict do not engage policy on surfaced ships and for good reason. The only blimp dumb enough to attempt attacking a surfaced U-boat was shot down by its 20mm AA-gun. Though as I stated before, that particular craft was a modern blimp and not rigid. They were mainly used to supplement the PBY fleet by taking tasks the float plane couldn't do such as hunting during the night with its radar and mine sweeping.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7bb5ab No.639460

>>638890

A bipedal gun carrier wouldn't be all that crazy in an urban warfare environment, if it had a compact enough and powerful enough engine.

Still, it'd be a small niche outside of which it would make no sense at all to field.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

450e3e No.639461

>>639447

The idea at the time was that fighters would be useless at intercepting bombers unless they had a 40-50% speed advantage. This was in the infancy of radar, so it was assumed fighters would be launched in response to sightings and would mostly be doing tail chases.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e9eb18 No.639465

File: e642b13b57bc8b9⋯.jpg (53.49 KB,834x544,417:272,0118c99f11b29ab69853562680….jpg)

File: 680ea28bc825a89⋯.jpg (12.91 KB,338x230,169:115,p_JW9c_XH.jpg)

>>639297

>Would they be any more resource intensive or vulnerable to attack than a surface ship of similar capability?

Resource intensiveness I have no idea. Since they were twice as fast as any surface ship, as long as they kept their scouts in the air and don't get surprised by a wing of Zeros they'd probably be pretty difficult to pin down.

>The Macon carried five planes and had a length of 785 feet. I do wonder, for the planes carried, what would their minimum runway distance be on a traditional aircraft carrier?

The Independence-class light carriers were 623 feet long and carried about 30 planes. Keep in mind though, is that the Macon and Akron were limited to small biplanes rather than the modern fighters and bombers the carriers were.

>airships true martial calling is as a floating artillery platform?

Don't like it. Carriers took over for battleships because people realized that the value of not exposing yourself to enemy fire outweighed simple volume of fire. Using an attack airship in the period accomplishes neither.

>>639347

>Would the Macon have made for decent transport and supply ship/FoB for seaplane patrol bombers with most of its parasite aircraft removed?

Maybe. My vision was to have them patrolling a few hundred miles ahead of the carrier fleet while keeping their scout aircraft patrolling in an arc in front of them. Best case scenario would have one of the scouts spot the Japanese fleet, then scamper off using it's speed to avoid retaliation. At that point, the carrier fleet can launch a strike while safe from attack.

>>639457

>They would have been lost to storms in the pacific

Yeah, that's probably the worst part.

>>639447

>Why not just modify existing bombers into gunships for this role?

Perhaps you would be a fan of the YB-40. Just cram as many .50 cals (or up to 40mm) in a B17 airframe as possible and turn the entire bomb bay into an ammunition magazine. Toss some extra armor plating on then put them in your bomber groups to protect them. Then realize they're too slow for the most part.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7d91af No.639468

File: 951caeda20b87a0⋯.png (465.08 KB,832x602,416:301,I've seen things that have….png)

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ac2034 No.639802

>>639465

There's actually no technical reason why an Akron-sized zeppelin couldn't be fitted to instead recover 3-4 F2As or F4Fs. The Macon's planned replacement would have even carried SBDs, exploiting the airship's own speed and altitude to launch planes with fuel and weapons loads that would be impossible for surface ships without the use of a catapult (which was a huge deal in 1935).

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1d56ce No.639810

>>638890

A cruel Vicker's thesis

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ae0e90 No.639816

>>639069

They were cool but they were always novelties. Only thing they could have been used for is to drop tanks on the decks of Jap ships

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ebeef8 No.639830

>>639816

>paradropping heavy armor from zeppelins directly onto the decks of battleships

This is the future we could have had.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

438108 No.639831

>>639069

>>639083

Why is everything you post so cute

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2ee214 No.639834

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f689b4 No.639847

>>638504

blish lock thompsons are a million times nicer than m1a1s and later versions.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

531726 No.639892

>>639816

You make it sound like you think dropping tanks on the decks of Japanese ships isn't an important tactic.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bab5a1 No.639940

>>638604

I like soviet aproach to getting thru minefield. Dont use specialised equipment. Just drive forward with battle tanks. Yes, you propably lose some percentage of vehicles, but you dont stall assault, doing so you negate main purpose of minefield.

Yes, I know that soviets had mineclearing tanks in WW2

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

d78f94 No.639946

>>639940

Pretty good, but could be better.

Instead of your own tanks, just force prisoners that you were probably going to execute anyway to form columns and march across the minefield.

You get to clear the field, save money that could be spent on repairs or new vehicles, and get rid of undesirables all at once. Three benefits in one! What a deal!

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

d4e62c No.639950

>>639946

We did something that was a lot less drasting, as they had to clean the minefield without dying on the process, but we still used undesirables to clear minefields.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_service_in_Hungary_during_World_War_II

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bab5a1 No.639951

>>639946

Human weight is not enough to trigger AT mine. El Goblino could, but it's not high tech like some 10 trillion DARPA project.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

79656b No.639954

>>639951

Just force feed el goblino or other prisoners enough lard so they'd be heavy enough to trigger the AT mines.

Hm. Is there a way to weaponize fat as hell goblins? Like stuff them with explosives and disease before launching at your enemies via catapult? Might as well try to get all use you can out of them, yeah?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c376e6 No.639971

>>638886

>but who in their right mind thought building-sized tanks wouldn't be a massive bomber+artillery magnet?

I imagine the idea was something along the lines of

>"It will be a moving fortress. Steel ten metres thick so that no artillery can even dent it; it'll be an invulnerable machine of death"

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

438814 No.639984

File: f1887fa165a35ba⋯.jpg (51.27 KB,718x480,359:240,8832f31aa49a34d8445d0f6698….jpg)

>>639892

The US Airforce has already perfected dropping tanks onto the enemy via airplanes.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

43001b No.639991

File: 03bb723b64f4853⋯.jpg (44.31 KB,629x383,629:383,Soviet anti-tank dog.jpg)

>be Soviets

>be inhuman filth

>want to train dogs so they carry explosives to german tanks and then run away

>delayed fuzes don't work

>fuck it let's just put an impact detonator on the dog and call it a day, dogs aren't even human so it's fine

>start training dogs loaded with explosives to run under tanks

>train the dogs with surplus tanks standing around inna field

>Barbarossa happens

>ohfug.jpg

>send out heroic socialist patriot dogs to crash the nazis with no survivors

>doggos get scared by machine gun and cannon fire, run back to their trenches killing everyone inside

>those that don't run away refuse to duck under the enemy tanks

>they try to run towards waiting for them to stop only to get shot and die

>other dogs run towards Soviet tanks instead of German ones due to being trained on Soviet tanks with diesel engines

>dog trainers quit en masse after having to shoot their frightened dogs so they don't run back towards friendly lines

>NKVD removes filthy traitors from service

>anti-tank dog training continues until 1996

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

438108 No.639994

>>639954

>Is there a way to weaponize fat as hell goblins?

Let them migrate into the rival country.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8797ef No.640071

>>639847

What does better fit and finish have to do with the core concept of the system not physically working?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f555c0 No.640074

>>640071

>not physically working

Just because the Blish principle is complete fiction doesn't mean the guns didn't work, it just means they were actually interrupted-thread-delayed blowback.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4e461f No.640160

>>639991

bullshit myth, it worked most of the time with very few friendly fire incidents. they just ran out of dog, and it takes longer to breed and train a dog than a single grenadier that can attack multiple tanks

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ae0e90 No.640168

>>640160

>unknown flag

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

9689d2 No.640184

>>640160

google translate of http://army.armor.kiev.ua/engenear/sobaka-mina.shtml - selected passage starts with "Первая группа собак-минеров…"

> The first group of miner dogs (30 dogs, 40 instructors, 4 cooks, 6 drivers, 10 soldiers of the miners) was sent to the front in the late summer of 1941.

>Already at the front, they tried to train dogs on real terrain against real tanks. As a result, of the twenty dogs released, no task was completed. The dogs scattered across the field and hid. Four of them could not be found. Two [were] crushed by tanks.

>The report of the group of the miner dogs captain Viporassky (Vinogradsky (?)) In the GUVI, written by hand and dated October 16, 1941, has survived:

"… 1. Most dogs refuse to work immediately and strive to jump into the trench, endangering infantry (six accidents).

2. Nine dogs after a short run in the right direction began to rush from side to side, were afraid of breaks artillery shells and mortars. , tried to hide in craters, pits, climbed under shelters. Three of them exploded, two were not revealed, the rest, because they began to go back, had to be destroyed with rifle-and-machine-gun fire

3. The fascists destroyed three dogs with guns fire and zab Ali himself. Trying to fight off and get killed by the dogs do not.

4. Presumably four dogs exploded near the German-fascist tanks, but confirm that they have disabled the tanks do not have … "

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

34a442 No.640196

How retarded would it have been if the Germans tried to convert Mk108's to be used on the ground against infantry? It seems it would be a little to heavy to transport for infantry, but on vehicles it would be extremely effective I would think. Would there be any political issues of obtaining an air weapon for ground use?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fbf475 No.640218

>>640160

>igor living inside his fantasy world again

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ebeef8 No.640247

>>640196

If they had used it it would definitely have been vehicle mounted. The army would have had trouble getting them, however. Göring didn't want anything getting in the way of Luftwaffe procurement and would not have agreed to give up the guns very easily. The Wehrmacht generally took precedence when it came to manufacturing time, however and may have overruled him. The interservice rivalry for materials support was intense and it no doubt would have worsened with this request. It may have panned out differently toward the end of the war when the planes were grounded for lack of fuel anyways, but I'm not so familiar with that period. I did find a reference saying that Luftwaffe MG81s were transferred to ground use toward the end of the war, however how this occurred and the politics of such is unknown to me.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

df55cd No.640252

>>640196

They already had 20mm and 37mm autocannons mounted on half-tracks and tanks, and they were used against ground targets. Oftentimes those AA units were attached to the main group of an attack, so they were certainly effective. But the problem is that you'd introduce an aircraft weapon that can't be used as an AA weapon from the ground. Best I can imagine is mounting it on a Sd.Kfz. 250 or 251.

>>640247

It's like you forgot the most glorious ground troops known to man: the Luftwaffe Field Divisions. I'm sure if Göring got serious about ground troops you'd see all manners of aircraft weapons used by the boys-in-blue. I can even see them using grounded aircraft as assault vehicles. Yes, it would be a horrible idea that is incredibly wasteful and ineffective, but so were those divisions.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

34a442 No.640258

>>640252

I think it would arc too much for use as an ai gun. I was thinking more in the role of the ags 30 or an autocannon mounted on a troop transport vehicle

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ebeef8 No.640349

>>640252

>heavily armed aircraft flying within ground effect in order to bring autocannon fire to the front line while avoiding detonating landmines

Ayyyy

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

700b61 No.640394

>>638491

To be fair, the F-111 did a few things well and some not so well. I mean how can you expect a plane to do everything from A to Z? The lancer is still in use to this day, so it couldn't have been that bad.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2ee214 No.640395

>>640394

Had said that could also become the case for F-35 if they turned it into a devoted ground attack aircraft but the .pdfs do not leave much ground for hope given its overheating and weapon bays shaking issues.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ac2034 No.640412

>>640394

The F-111 was actually great as far as actual performance went, it was just a huge pain in the ass to maintain. Even the fighter variants probably would have been fine, it just had the misfortune of being developed while USN leadership was still freaking out about our early-Vietnam WVR losses and wanted dogfighting capabilities on a fleet-defense interceptor that should never be allowing hostiles into visual range in the first place.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2ee214 No.640467

>>640412

>Even the fighter variants probably would have been fine

>fighter

Interceptor*. It would suck as a fighter. Plus the Navy's demands created the F-14, an air superiority fighter that if modernized would outperform all existing fighters even today (and unlike the F-35 and F-111 could be a true multi-role).

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7cca2f No.640497

File: b71758b34de173f⋯.jpg (1.21 MB,1338x765,446:255,McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin_USA….jpg)

File: 727b640f72a84b3⋯.jpg (75.22 KB,800x588,200:147,XF85-Goblin2.jpg)

Would parasite fighters have been a viable addition to Battleships or was the whole concept a meme?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2ee214 No.640504

File: 7e59e5d82772048⋯.png (49.29 KB,640x300,32:15,240de49a1e04626063ffc49052….png)

>>640497

Parasite fighters were theoretically the most agile dogfighters back in the 70s.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bab5a1 No.640524

>>640218

>Hans learning about WW2 from Enemy at The Gates and CoD

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4e461f No.640557

>>640504

They still are. Most fuel is used raising to altitude, and then traveling to the enemy and back. Having something larger carry you there means you can remove two thirds of the fuel stores. And not having to land on the ground or deal with the stresses of landing means removing half the structural struts and the very heavy DEAD WEIGHT of the landing gear.

In other words it makes the aircraft more than TWICE lighter, so if it's using the same engines as the land variant, it's going to have OVER TWICE the thrust-to-weight ratio! Meaning being faster and being able to travel at higher altitude, it can feed more power into a turn meaning tighter turns as well, and it can tell missiles to fuck off. At the same cost.

There's a reason industry > crafts, there's a reason rocket staging > SSTO, splitting a task or operation into smaller bite sizes rocket staging is efficient, the same reason airplane staging would be more efficient.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8262a3 No.641645

File: cdaa70cf1f8a24f⋯.jpg (549.13 KB,2589x2002,2589:2002,t-35.21205.jpg)

File: 4b2590271dac041⋯.jpg (228.22 KB,1024x768,4:3,t35 f69050e20462215cd40006….jpg)

File: 0fec924c28ba08c⋯.jpeg (1.33 MB,3543x2181,1181:727,t-35-iz-67-tp-34-td-3.jpeg)

File: a0194b353236e69⋯.jpg (65.21 KB,591x423,197:141,t35szembol.jpg)

>>638874

>>638886

Russian inferiority complex never fails to deliver.

<I don't care if its obviously retarded, we must show everyone that we can do it!

>Now let's have a turret farm on treads, where the bustles and barrels block egress, with isolated fighting compartments without internal comm, and give it the steering and gearbox of a light tank! That will show them!

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2fa548 No.641647

>>638890

A shame instead of some crappy and barely useful mechas we get the F-35

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

26daf8 No.641648

>>641645

>Also, let's not armor it enough to stand up to anything but distant AT rifles, because otherwise it won't even be able to move.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8262a3 No.641650

File: 7b2512cdb1de7fa⋯.jpg (3.99 MB,2761x1841,2761:1841,Tupolev_Tu-4_01_red_(10255….jpg)

File: 14ab4426b5b82d8⋯.jpg (413.47 KB,1024x688,64:43,tu-144 0790453.jpg)

File: e2865d2b1c6b65f⋯.jpg (972.35 KB,1994x1944,997:972,buran Gateway_to_space_201….jpg)

File: 6e2cdfd1ed9cc81⋯.jpg (44.89 KB,720x412,180:103,buran-b-image01.jpg)

>>641645

Some more manifestations of this pathology.

The Buran was meant to work as an orbital bomber, because they speculated the STS was too stupid to work as anything else but a military project.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ebeef8 No.641659

>>641650

>Tu-144 looks upon the jeering crowd in disdain.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

171745 No.641751

File: adc8fc01edf2d2b⋯.jpg (51.59 KB,377x480,377:480,Curved Barrel.jpg)

File: 079bf83510d8876⋯.png (146.69 KB,383x501,383:501,LMG11.png)

File: be8b9aa105e8bb3⋯.jpg (28.3 KB,660x340,33:17,PPSh-Curved-Barrel.jpg)

File: d9994574ac324ce⋯.jpg (20.71 KB,800x333,800:333,XM106-prototype.jpg)

Whats with people and curved barrels? did they ever work?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7d91af No.641765

>>641751

They worked until they barrel wore away. 300 or so rounds as the Germans found out.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ebeef8 No.641767

>>641751

God damn that PPSH made me laugh. Fucking pure autism just get rid of the barrel jacket.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bab5a1 No.641774

>>641650

>copy of B-29

>equivalent of Concorde with smaller range

>equivalent of Space Shuttle but better

>"pathology"

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

34a442 No.641825

File: 4cc3239a4f03847⋯.png (233.39 KB,650x378,325:189,ClipboardImage.png)

I think the FW 190/ Ju 88 Mistel is one of the most questionable last ditch efforts by the luftwaffe to stall the allies. After seeing quitea bit of footage of it being used in Il-2 against a bridge and trying to use it myself, I wonder why they couldn't have just used a large bomb against a bridge. I heard it was also used against shipping, I could see reasonable use here given a good angle of attack because it would be much faster than a torpedo and thus it could be launched at somewhat of a greater range I assume.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

b6cdfd No.641828

>>641765

They would work if pansies would suck up their pride and go back to the tried and true round balls

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

89cd66 No.641829

>>641828

Wouldn't a musket ball work fairly well considering the range? I guess it would have shitty terminal effects though.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

89cd66 No.641830

>>641829

And would it work with a shotgun? The breakup of the wad as it goes around the bend seems like it would be an issue there.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

26daf8 No.641839

File: a58c3688f2eb0df⋯.jpg (63.39 KB,599x864,599:864,B1Hc-h5CEAAPE3d.jpg)

File: 82d495fc0391535⋯.jpg (18.06 KB,514x258,257:129,indexfgadfgad.jpg)

Toss bombing always seemed to be rather questionable.

>>641825

Those things…I remember as a kid trying to knock out a bridge in the mission you use them and getting utterly screwed every single time. My worst experience, one that has stuck with me forever, went like so:

>fifth or so try attempting to hit the bridge

>decide I'm making it happen this time, no matter what

>approach the bridge from a higher altitude than normal

>go into a 45 or so degree dive

>"ah hah" my brain thinks, "even if I miss the bridge the impact with the water will set the warhead off"

>release bomb and pull off, activate autopilot

>swap camera to bomb

>trajectory looks to be almost perfect

>just a hair low, but it'll crash almost directly below the bridge

>nose and fuselage miss edge of bridge by a couple feet

>vertical stabilizer hits edge of bridge, snaps off

>impact jolts nose upward

>bomb almost skims surface of the water

>watch bomb fly serenely off into the distance

>exit mission

>never attempt mission again

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

34a442 No.641843

>>641839

I wish I had the childlike persistence, I tried about 3 or 4 times, I was pretty good about lining up with the road, but most of my shots were low and as a result I blew myself up before I could peel away.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bab5a1 No.641849

>>641825

>I wonder why they couldn't have just used a large bomb against a bridge

Because bridges are small targets easier to hit with guided bomb

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8262a3 No.641987

File: 322f7c3d260f964⋯.jpg (198.29 KB,1280x960,4:3,ekr lun tumblr_nw2uec3qRl1….jpg)

File: 720a5d0d02bd365⋯.jpg (207.66 KB,1373x900,1373:900,ekr lun tFelIPu.jpg)

File: 35bffeefba3d2c0⋯.jpg (49.11 KB,833x486,833:486,Ekranoplan.jpg)

File: 1c1da81e1f94bf2⋯.jpg (134.65 KB,1800x925,72:37,ekrano 04136402.jpg)

File: 87849770b5de3d6⋯.jpg (112.01 KB,1240x696,155:87,ekr lun original.jpg)

One might wonder why nobody picked up the ground-effect vehicle after the Soviets.

>>641774

<copy of B-29

A reverse engineering effort that was equivalent of five original bomber projects in work hours because the commissar insisted they have to copy every piece of equipment instead of using off-the-shelf domestic ones.

<equivalent of Concorde with smaller range

It was a bullshit vanity project rushed through development because the commissar wanted to shout "FIRST"

<equivalent of Space Shuttle but better

Equivalent of the Soyuz and UR-500 systems already in service, but worse. Glushko went out of his way to build anything but a copy of the idiotic burgerplane, but the commissar wanted it to resemble, because "otherwise the world will think we can't build a proper space shuttle".

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-USSRs-space-shuttle-the-Buran-look-so-much-like-the-US-shuttle-Was-this-a-result-of-espionage-or-just-outward-imitation/answer/Konstantin-Zhiltsov

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

5b795d No.641988

File: 5218a4b110ea772⋯.jpg (100.32 KB,795x941,795:941,1542133995749.jpg)

File: a3014eb32f2b456⋯.png (4.94 MB,1900x1280,95:64,ded.png)

>>641987

>One might wonder why nobody picked up the ground-effect vehicle after the Soviets.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8262a3 No.641998

File: c92ec9b75e566e7⋯.png (70.99 KB,669x441,223:147,hultgreen.png)

File: 1a8ee330de8c9d7⋯.png (1.2 MB,1353x3592,1353:3592,hollygraf.png)

File: 84643eadf72c19a⋯.png (62.12 KB,734x468,367:234,fitzgerald collision.png)

File: 6e874da2e7475be⋯.webm (6.96 MB,320x240,4:3,women in military.webm)

>>641988

Women are indeed a strange piece of military hardware. The loons who want to see them everywhere are even stranger.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4d2bcf No.642010

>>641998

I know I've seen that webm posted before, but please tell me its some celeb they have on there for a stupid show or something.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bcc030 No.642029

File: bab2972dece7d75⋯.jpg (157.2 KB,1024x689,1024:689,Navy_Hydrofoil007-copy-e13….jpg)

>>641987

Ground effect is a very specific thing that will only work in calm waters in specific parts of the globe. Such as the seas around Russia. They don't do bad weather and they have a terrible tendency to suddenly nose down if you hit a bad pocket of air meaning you are flying on pins and needles the entire time. Though we also adopted a fast moving anti-ship missile platform in the Pegasus class hydrofoil as it had much better seakeeping in open ocean than ground effect craft. Granted its role was to fire harpoons at small missile corvettes like an extra fast frigate whereas the erkranoplans were to be used as extra fast missile corvettes.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

aa57e2 No.642061

>>642029

Dear lord why did they scrap those things? The only things they needed extra were a pair of anti air missiles and they would have been excellent border patrol boats.

Also if the arsenal ship actually came to life they could have had a target designator for it

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bcc030 No.642080

File: fc8992a58e1c3ef⋯.jpg (43.24 KB,680x408,5:3,bang.jpg)

>>642061

They were actually proposed to be operated in the gulf of Mexico for that purpose after the cold war ended but Clinton put a stop to that in a hurry.

mfw one still survives today as a private yacht

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

5b795d No.642139

>>642029

Would Ground Effect vehicles work in the Sea of Japan or the Mediterranean?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

472058 No.642248

>>642029

>Ground effect is a very specific thing that will only work in calm waters in specific parts of the globe.

This. Is. Bullshit.

Ground effect exists everywhere, it happens because the air is trapped between the wing and the ground and thus produces a compression resistance in addition to usual lift.

This happens to every aircraft trying to land ever the ground effect is well known as something the pilot fights against every time he lands.

It is impossible to "nosedive" in ground effect, you have to FIGHT, as in apply lift force DOWN, to even land. No such thing as "bad air pockets", that isn't how it works.

It doesn't stop a few inches off the ground either, ground effect is there 6-10m off the ground, which is sea state 6-8. A ground effect aircraft can fly over virtually all seas much better than any ship connected to the fucking water.

Oh, and any aircraft that can fly in ground effect can also rise out of ground effect and fly normally. It's just wastes as much fuel as a normal aircraft when it does that, which kind of defeats the purpose.

The Wright Brothers likely made their first flight entirely in ground effect.

WIG can even land on water and sit there like a trimaran boat doing everything a boat does.

The literal only downside of a WIG over a boat is that the WIG can't move as fast once it lands.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bcc030 No.642285

File: c5176879588fba5⋯.png (26.03 KB,132x213,44:71,dude.PNG)

>>642139

They would probably work in the med as I believe I read somewhere that some fuckoff money Saudi was planning on making a ground effect cargo liner across it. The sea of Japan is a bit iffy as its still mostly connected to the Pacific which is not a calm ocean despite the name.

>>642248

Why do you have the absolute worse reading comprehension out of anyone on this entire site? Aircraft trying to land do so over flat ground or very calm seas you dipshit. This is why pure ground effect only craft can only operate in calm seas or very flat plains like salt flats. I can't believe the lengths you go to in misunderstanding to get upset at people here.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c3c4c9 No.642289

>>642061

>a pair of anti air missiles and they would have been excellent border patrol boats

The Italians have been developing some pretty nifty shells for that 76mm gun, therefore I think it wouldn't even need those missiles. Of course we don't know how much of this is just marketing.

https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/strales

>if the arsenal ship actually came to life they could have had a target designator for it

Not just that, if you use it to patrol your own waters, then you can use them together with anti-ship missiles to get rid of anything from smugglers to invading fleets.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

5b795d No.642294

File: 0a677ca109eaf7c⋯.png (122.54 KB,292x389,292:389,takagi_smug.png)

>>642248

>It is impossible to "nosedive" in ground effect, you have to FIGHT, as in apply lift force DOWN, to even land.

<his speed management is so poor he has to actively push the nose down on landing

<he's never landed a taildragger

Sasuga leaf-kun, you never fail to disappoint.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

472058 No.642321

>>642294

>It is impossible to "nosedive" in ground effect, you have to FIGHT, as in apply lift force DOWN, to even land.

<his speed management is so poor he has to actively push the nose down on landing

>apply lift force DOWN

<actively push the nose down

>has to actually point nose at the ground in order to apply aerodynamic force at the earth

>is riding in a 18th century 11-winged failplane

>has never heard of flaps

The fuck are you trying to prove?

>>642285

>This is why pure ground effect only craft can only operate in calm seas or very flat plains like salt flats.

BUT THAT IS PATENTLY FUCKING WRONG YOU FAGGOT!!

Air pressure is uniform at any given altitude, it's a fucking GAS!!!!

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

0e0e79 No.642351

>>642321

No its not you double nigger, air pressure is significantly lower the higher you go up

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

472058 No.642373

>>642351

>at any given altitude

First learn to read. Then pick up a middle school science textbook.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2895bd No.642424

>>642321

>Air pressure is uniform at any given altitude, it's a fucking GAS!!!!

You are one dumb nigger. Have you never looked at a weather report where they talk about pressure systems? Have you never wondered why altimeters are adjustable? If pressure was uniform at a given altitude, then there would be nothing causing the air to flow horizontally. You know, that "wind" thing. Pressure would be uniform IF THE ATMOSPHERE WERE IN EQUILIBRIUM, WHICH IT IS NOT. That is why weather exists.

>>642248

>It doesn't stop a few inches off the ground either, ground effect is there 6-10m off the ground, which is sea state 6-8

Your entire argument here is based on the idea that the vehicle will maintain exactly the same altitude at all times, and it can be considered "safe" as long as nothing is taller than that exact altitude. That's a load of bullshit.

If the ground isn't flat you'll get turbulence that will bump you around. If turbulence is bumping you around, your height will change. If your height is changing, you might hit things that are sticking up from the surface. And since you are flying less than 10m above the surface, you have absolutely no time to react. Even if your craft can land on the water, flying through waves at full speed is not a good thing.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

073874 No.642426

>>642080

delete this picture in an instant

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

472058 No.642430

VPNs are a fucking cancer

>>642424

The air pressure that makes weather systems doesn't change the density of the air enough to drop an aircraft out of the sky. It does not work that way.

>muh turbulence

Ekranoplans are uniquely suited to deal with it, they have larger control surfaces, mass more, have stub wings and more engine power than necessary. This isn't an issue.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

5b795d No.642550

Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>642321

Show me where the Pilots use downforce outside the elevators to make their planes land and how flaps decrease aerodynamic lift somehow.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2895bd No.642685

>>641998

>Holly Graf

Interesting that her Wikipedia article has a notice at the top saying the entire article may get deleted because it doesn't meet "notability guidelines". I'm sure there's no other interests at play there.

>For instance, while she was commander of the Churchill, a propeller snapped just as it was leaving port, leaving it dead in the water. Graf grabbed the navigator and dragged him to the outdoor bridge wing while cursing at him. According to chaplain Maurice Kaprow, many Churchill sailors, knowing that Graf's career would have ended if the Churchill had run aground, started jumping for joy and singing Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead on the fantail.

>Ultimately, the entire crew broke out in cheers when she was relieved in 2004.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

34a442 No.642865

Alright, generally speaking using bombs on a airstrip is generally effective especially If it's made of concrete. If you bomb a dirt/grass field it cam be quickly repaired, so what if we mined it? Mines can be launched from the ai, getting near an airstrip would be tough especially with engine noise. I figure you could turn your engine a way off from the target and glide in, drop your ordnance, and leave. This would be done at night, of course. I reckon this process could render an airstrip unusable thus forcing enemies to either relocate without being able to ferry aircraft, wasting time and logistics vehicles. At best it could blow off the gear of a returning or taking off aircraft. This is in more of a world war 2 context

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

26daf8 No.642869

>>642865

During WWII (and in other wars I'm sure), bombing airfields usually consisted of impact bombs combined with time fuzed ones. These fuzes could be anywhere from minutes to days long, which made attempting to repair the field hazardous. As far as mines go, I don't see it being that helpful, since I'm 90% sure airstrips would be inspected prior to use.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

472058 No.642916

>>642550

Do you see that giant thing hanging off the back of the airplane? It's called a flap, it increases drag and creates nose dive pitch, both of which reduce WIG.

6-7 seconds you can see him struggling with WIG effect, he bounces in the air twice trying to set it down.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

df922e No.642929

>>642916

>It's called a flap, it increases drag and creates nose dive pitch, both of which reduce WIG.

While not entirely wrong, you are certainly not right either.

Flaps increase the surface area of the wings and increase the angle of attack on the rear portions of it too. This generates more drag but also generates a lot more lift. This is why flaps are used for landing and takeoff procedures. Using them in fast flight would generate so much lift that the wings would rip off. The drag they produce is not generally used for slowing down. You can see this especially immediately after touchdown. Pilots often immediately retract flaps after touchdown to decrease lift and give the wheelbrakes more weight on them.

Because wings are mounted near the center of gravity of any aircraft, flaps will generate very little extra Torque on the aircraft.

You could possibly be thinking about airbrakes, which are meant to produce drag and not lift, in order to slow the plane down.

WIG (Wing in ground, or ground effect) is not really a major issue for most fixed wing aircraft. A wing generates lift by increasing the static air pressure underneath the wing and increasing the dynamic pressure above. This causes an imbalance of forces acting upon the wings and generates an upwards force.

If the aircraft is close to the ground the pressure below the wing will be even greater, because air has no way to move out of the way downwards. This generates even greater lift even if the wing is moving slower than normal.

If pilots encounter this problem shortly before touchdown they can usually glide it out and wait until they have slowed down enough, or deploy airbrakes. Pulling up slightly increases AoA and makes the plane slow down a little faster, so it's not a bad idea, as long as you don't stall entirely or manage to tailstrike.

If you are still far too fast near ground it is recommended to do a go around. What speed is too fast is determined per model of aircraft individually.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

eee26a No.642979

>>642289

If you could get the shells to work well, they could certainly do as a high caliber CAWS. The reason I said a pair of AA missiles is because it uses existing munitions and launchers, and would reduce the contractor sponging to a minimum. You could even attach a towed sonar bouy, a targeting system and swap two of the harpoon missiles for asrocs and you have an all purpose, cheaply made, fast as all fuck fighting boat.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

5b795d No.642987

File: f978e9fae157a81⋯.jpg (2.94 MB,2100x1500,7:5,Independence class.jpg)

File: 36d126f7294c50b⋯.jpg (1.4 MB,2700x1795,540:359,Freedom class.jpg)

>>642979

>sensible, cost effective shit that works

Why bother with such unprofitable fallacies of theoretical military engineering instead of buying a fleet of these?

:^)

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ac2034 No.643046

>>642916

Exactly. That's why we also use flaps during takeoff, where the goal is to minimize both speed and lift.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

472058 No.643060

>>642929

>This generates more drag but also generates a lot more lift.

No, it doesn't. If it generated more lift that way, the airplane would rise into the sky not land.

Lowering flaps just maintains some level of lift and control at a lower speed, so you aren't stalling and falling like a rock. This is obvious because even with flaps down you're still reducing altitude, so it can't be producing "more lift". Once you're in WIG mode it's just for drag, and they get popped up when the wheels touch the ground to prevent flipping the aircraft over. You can see this on some much larger aircraft which don't reduce the flaps when wheels touch the ground, as they're too massive/stable to flip over.

>Because wings are mounted near the center of gravity of any aircraft, flaps will generate very little extra Torque on the aircraft.

What? Mounting something near the center of gravity makes it EASIER to move, not more difficult…

>Using them in fast flight would generate so much lift that the wings would rip off.

It would just nose you over into a rapid dive.

>>643046

You're also using your elevators during takeoff which make sure your nose is up, and your engines which pump power into the system which otherwise would be crashing. For fucks sake…

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

26daf8 No.643069

File: 02db457b85ef269⋯.png (38.68 KB,692x313,692:313,airfoil-terminology-2.png)

File: d7265fd482ad1c8⋯.jpg (58.18 KB,657x230,657:230,flapsonangle.jpg)

>>643060

Lets get the absolute basics established.

>Chord Line

Draw a line from the leading edge of the wing to the trailing edge, that is a chord line.

>Angle of Attack

Difference between the chord line and the Relative Wind. The larger AoA you have, the more air you are scooping with the wing. Larger AoA = more lift.

>Flaps

Trailing edge device that adjusts the Chord Line, and thus increases the AoA. Flaps are used in landing because they allow a pilot to approach at a steeper decent angle while maintaining a slow speed.

>Once you're in WIG mode it's just for drag

So you've never done a soft-field takeoff, have you?

>they get popped up when the wheels touch the ground to prevent flipping the aircraft over

>It would just nose you over into a rapid dive.

What the fuck? Have you ever flown an airplane, this is the exact opposite of what happens.

>Mounting something near the center of gravity makes it EASIER to move, not more difficult…

Which is my ailerons, elevators and rudders are all mounted as close to the center of an aircraft as possible, right?

t. pilot

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2895bd No.643085

>>643060

At this point I hope you're just baiting, and not actually this stupid.

If flaps tend to flip the aircraft over, then why are they left extended for soft-field landings? If flaps increased lift, then keeping them extended makes sense, since it stops your wheels digging into the ground (which actually could cause you to flip over), but since you insist they don't then what's the reason?

If flaps only increase drag and not lift in ground effect, then why are flaps particularly extended for short-field takeoffs? If they increased lift and reduced the stall speed, then it makes sense since you'd have a lower takeoff speed, and thus need less runway. But since you insist they just increase drag when in ground effect, you would accelerate slower, and need MORE runway to get up to speed, making flaps counterproductive.

>even with flaps down you're still reducing altitude, so it can't be producing "more lift"

What are you even trying to say? With flaps extended you produce more lift than you would with flaps up in the same conditions. That is true when you are ascending with flaps extended during takeoff, and it is true when you are descending with flaps extended during approach.

>Mounting something near the center of gravity makes it EASIER to move, not more difficult…

τ = r x F you absolute nigger.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

472058 No.643208

>>643069

>posts a picture that proves full flaps cause a more rapid descent

The absolute basics for you guys seem to be "when something is falling down, it isn't achieving more lift than when it's flying level"

>>643085

>τ = r x F you absolute nigger.

Grab a hammer by the bottom of the grips. Lift the head, note how difficult it is.

Now grab it by the head, closer to the center of mass, and lift the handle.

Which is easier?

Applying force closer to the center of mass produces stronger results, this is why swords are balanced so the center of mass is near the tip of the grips ffs.

How do you fail at things babies can figure out.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

5b79e1 No.643246

File: 220c62c98c8449b⋯.gif (3.21 MB,400x225,16:9,220c62c98c8449b24ede1b9b99….gif)

>>643208

You don't understand the point and you don't know what you're talking about, flaps in the landing position generate more lift but also generate a lot more air resistance, slowing the aircraft down. Make a guess why there's takeoff and landing flap positions, and why takeoff is somewhere around half the angle of landing.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

dccc4e No.643257

File: a86066c8a7f5c03⋯.jpg (30.68 KB,449x546,449:546,1455588303328.jpg)

>>638818

I could never understand it, why didn't they made the front turret to be a main armament of some heavy fighter. If there's a front turret it's always some shit machinegun, usually 7.62 mm, some have 12.7 mm but that's it, just barely sufficient to scare off some fighters in frontal hemisphere. They should've put B-17 ball turrets in there, with targeting computers and shit, but equipped with a pair of belt fed 20 mm autocannons and a 35 mm coaxial auxiliary gun. And they did had heavy twin prop fighters with a shitload of frontal guns in the nose, yet they didn't took one more logical step of turning that shit into a turret so that the aiming is not limited by airplane's maneuverability. No, they just used the turrets for defense and put super shitty guns on them too, and when they seriously attempted this concept they did it in the most retarded possible fashion like you have there, it baffles me.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

dccc4e No.643269

File: 2ae09282fd98f4e⋯.jpg (192.68 KB,1011x548,1011:548,Vickers_Wellington_Mk2.jpg)

File: 11ca292d2cf5a43⋯.jpg (149.75 KB,1600x702,800:351,BeaufighterUSAAF1.jpg)

>>643257

Take these two pictures of a fighter and a bomber, completely out of context. It doesn't takes a genius to immediately see that if a bomber can benefit from having articulated frontal guns, a fighter will too and to a much greater extent.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

dccc4e No.643271

>>639280

>low fuel efficiency

>heating issues

Probably was winding the motors for too much speed, so at low speed they ate shitload of electricity and produced shitload of heat for very little mechanical power output. Or he did something retarded like using resistive voltage regulator instead of simply controlling motor RPM. Something simple like generator directly connected to the engine, wired through a breaker box to the sprocket-driving universal motors, would have no problems whatsoever bar minor arcing in the breaker and on the motor brushes.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

df922e No.643277

>>643060

>No, it doesn't. If it generated more lift that way, the airplane would rise into the sky not land.

I seriously hope you don't belive that.

Airplanes already slow down a lot during approach. It's travel speed is a lot faster than it's landing speed.

Deploying flaps allows you to

>maintain[s] some level of lift and control at a lower speed

because it increases lift drastically. Without deploying flaps you would be close to stalling and certainly pushing the nose of the aircraft much higher than with flaps. This would make landing harder for the pilots and designing the landing gear much more difficult for the engineers, because you still have to prevent a tailstrike.

>What? Mounting something near the center of gravity makes it EASIER to move, not more difficult…

Yeah, this is bait.

>>643208

>he doesn't know the difference between force and torque

This is hilarious.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

26daf8 No.643302

>>643208

>posts a picture that proves full flaps cause a more rapid descent

Except that's not what the image shows, which you would know if you understood the mechanics behind flaps and their effect on flight.

>>643257

The Blackburn Roc and the Boulton Paul Defiant were kind of close to what you're talking about, but I would assume that having a rotating pair of 20 mils and a 35(?)mm would take up too much space as opposed to a fixed mounting.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

dccc4e No.643307

File: 004f51a577c0f15⋯.jpg (145.67 KB,654x539,654:539,1437633101688.jpg)

>>641650

To their credit, they actually made a superior version of Shuttle, and again to their credit, they realized it was a complete and total waste of money as early as its maiden flight and pulled the plug on it.

>>641987

Limited operability at sea. It can't fly in stormy weather for crap, can't swim either. It can rise to aircraft altitude but if it can't land on water then it's utterly fucked. Also very poor fuel efficiency - these 8 giant engines are not for show.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bcc030 No.643344

File: 9ce1ed2db979c8f⋯.gif (104.13 KB,625x626,625:626,0de.gif)

File: 13be228fa4e974f⋯.jpg (60.57 KB,756x504,3:2,75105 B-52H 61-0036 left r….jpg)

File: 4482a8053c927cd⋯.jpg (91.7 KB,707x551,707:551,YOV-10D_prototype_in_fligh….JPG)

>>643208

Put a rubber ducky in a bathtub and poke it on the beak and tail and notice that it pitches up and down easily when poked there! And if you poke it on the center of mass it won't pitch!

How do you fail at things babies can figure out.

>>643269

The problem on putting articulated guns on a fighter is simple. Who's gonna aim them? Especially during an engagement. Aiming the plane is going to be easier than a pilot trying to aim the plane and a gunner presumably lying down trying to make frantic corrections at the same time instead of just leaving one man in the equation. When it comes to modern jets with radar assisted aiming, the added weight and cost of adding on the gimbals and servos along with the deicing equipment to keep it from locking up far outweigh the advantage of gaining maybe a 30 degree cone of fire in front of your fighter for those once in a million year gun battles that occur. Also the length of your average fighter mounted auto-canon would restrict your cone of fire or risk inciting some serious drag and wonky aerodynamics in the middle of an engagement. Articulated guns are for aircraft that target things that can't move, or can't move themselves.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

26daf8 No.643349

File: 736b2119bfb5d2c⋯.jpg (707.69 KB,3144x2400,131:100,Northrop_P-61_green_airbor….jpg)

>>643344

The P-61 is actually a pretty decent example of this concept. It served in the last years of WWII to pretty good results.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bcc030 No.643353

>>643349

Yeah, but its a night fighter which applies to it working on aircraft that target things that can't move.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7d5bb1 No.643360

File: 0e8510b822ab476⋯.webm (474.79 KB,1280x720,16:9,Apache Turret.webm)

>>643344

>Who's gonna aim them?

They had this figured out since WW2 and is far more advanced now.

A quick demonstration /watch?v=nskFayhBcy0

And a period explanation of the system /watch?v=yABTembGYhg

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

472058 No.643406

>>643277

>>643302

>>643246

Flaps being down has nothing to do with lift, it has to do with control. They have to present a larger surface area to the incoming airflow, or else they won't have enough bite in the air mass, and won't be able to turn the aircraft. During landing the drag is a nice benefit that reduces airspeed. The reason why they're in half position when taking off is because you're not as willing to risk the drag, but still need controlability at the low speeds.

I can't believe I'm arguing the existence of WIG with some basic bitches.

>>643344

Rubber ducky is experiencing buoyancy, which is a different force. Are you serious?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

26daf8 No.643416

File: e38aa17fe21c60b⋯.png (83.08 KB,576x562,288:281,adsfxcb.PNG)

File: db32645f32b17b0⋯.gif (23.06 KB,710x533,710:533,flap.gif)

File: 901207eca583b95⋯.png (18.05 KB,507x294,169:98,ClipboardImage.png)

>>643406

>Flaps being down has nothing to do with lift

You are a fucking retard.

>They have to present a larger surface area to the incoming airflow

They increase the angle of attack by adjusting the chord line.

>won't be able to turn the aircraft.

If you have to make dramatic turns during a takeoff or a landing, something has gone seriously wrong. >inb4 you claim the traffic pattern as a defense

>The reason why they're in half position when taking off is because you're not as willing to risk the drag, but still need controlability at the low speeds

No, the reason you'd use flaps in a takeoff is to increase the amount of lift your wings generate at a given airspeed, allowing you to lift off the ground sooner. In a soft-field takeoff, for example, you'd then remain in ground effect until enough speed had been built up at which point you'd climb out and retract the flaps.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2895bd No.643418

>>643406

>Flaps being down has nothing to do with lift, it has to do with control. They have to present a larger surface area to the incoming airflow, or else they won't have enough bite in the air mass, and won't be able to turn the aircraft.

>flaps have to be able to turn the aircraft

I'm not convinced you even know what flaps are.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

472058 No.643430

>>643416

>Flaps being down has nothing to do with lift

When landing you fucking moron, because clearly it doesn't produce lift enough to prevent the aircraft from landing. When you are actually taking off, the engines feed power into the system which counteracts drag. How are you even bringing taking off into a discussion about the effects of WIG on landing? But quote more out of context, I'm sure if you slime bullshit around enough, some useful idiots will believe you. Too bad I don't care what idiots believe, so it doesn't affect me in any way.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

26daf8 No.643439

>>643430

>When landing you fucking moron, because clearly it doesn't produce lift enough to prevent the aircraft from landing.

Who the fuck ever said anything about "preventing" an aircraft from landing? How are you not capable of understanding the simple fact that flaps increase the angle of attack, which increases the amount of lift a wing generates AT A GIVEN SPEED. By putting flaps in during a landing, the plane may be slowed to a point that it would normally stall in a 'clean' configuration while also allowing a steeper decent.

>When you are actually taking off, the engines feed power into the system which counteracts drag.

We call this thrust. But it's the first element that you seem to actually understand, so point to you.

>How are you even bringing taking off into a discussion about the effects of WIG on landing?

The discussion has expanded since you've proven beyond all doubt you have no idea what you're talking about.

>Too bad I don't care what idiots believe, so it doesn't affect me in any way.

Outright stating that your plan is to clap your hands over your ears and yell "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" is an interesting tactic, but not one I see playing out too well for you in the long run.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2895bd No.643442

>>643430

>because clearly it doesn't produce lift enough to prevent the aircraft from landing

You are making such a bizarre leap of logic that I'm skeptical it would be possible for anyone to ever actually believe this.

Claiming that flaps can't be for lift because the aircraft can descend with them extended is as stupid as claiming that wings must not be for lift for the same reason. Even if the lift isn't enough to stop the aircraft from descending, it is still more than it would be without them, and that increase is very significant.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bcc030 No.643464

File: 2aadc25d4de4b7a⋯.gif (140.98 KB,500x400,5:4,bright chew.gif)

>>643360

Well done, you failed read the rest of my post like the other person and posted a system similar to what pic 3 in my post is which is for targeting things that can't move. IE ground targets and bombers.

>>643406

>totally ignore that the duck pitches easily when experiencing control inputs at the ends and stays stable when the same inputs are applied to the center of mass to state that its in water

You are totally hopeless and just as retarded as that one guy who tried to say barrel harmonics are a myth no matter how much evidence was pushed in his face.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c4ba65 No.643471

>>643430

Autism

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

26daf8 No.643473

>>643464

>you failed read the rest of my post like the other person

Anon I was agreeing with you. My example of the P-61 was in response to articulated guns being used as anti-bomber weapons.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bcc030 No.643531

File: 87d5dc82890d37a⋯.gif (263.88 KB,148x111,4:3,Poppy bros suicide.gif)

>>643473

fug :DDDD

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f3e4e0 No.643558

>>641645

For a moment I thought the white stripes on the first one were windows, now I’m disappointed the soviets didn’t built a larger P1000 Ratte landship.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f3e4e0 No.643561

>>642321

>Air pressure is uniform at any given altitude, it's a fucking GAS!!!!

I’ll have to apologize for my fellow countryman. I’m sure you all understand what it’s like to be a leaf but I still must apologize for this particular example.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

472058 No.643567

File: 79eb2c7d01a4c81⋯.png (24 KB,794x710,397:355,k aircraft.png)

>>643439

You said it's producing MORE LIFT with flaps down, than it did with flaps up. Given that knowledge, how the fuck is it landing with flaps down?

>mentions stall

>still refuses to accept that flaps are down to prevent stall on control surfaces

lol yeah ok, stay in school.

>>643442

Except you morons are stating the wing is producing MORE lift as a result of the flaps, not less. I'm the one stating that flaps down produces no increase in lift compared to flaps up. Those are the two positions so far argued, which I've gathered from all these mobs of (you) being retarded and not understanding basic flight physics.

For example,

>it is still more than it would be without them

You are saying:

>LESS LIFT - FLYING LEVEL OR RISING IN ALTITUDE

>MORE LIFT - DESCENDING IN ALTITUDE AND LANDING

whhhhhaaaaa? I didn't know that all Wright brothers had to do is build a vertical wall of a wing to rise into the sky.

>>643464

Yes but that isn't the center of gravity of the duck, because it's experiencing buoyant forces there. How stupid do you have to be?

>>643561

And I'm very sorry you have to see this example of Canadian education joining in with examples of other Western-nations cucked educational systems trying to grandstand on a booster seat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altimeter#Pressure_altimeter

>A pressure altimeter is the altimeter found in most aircraft, and skydivers use wrist-mounted versions for similar purposes.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f3e4e0 No.643577

>>643567

>And I'm very sorry you have to see this example of Canadian education joining in with examples of other Western-nations cucked educational systems trying to grandstand on a booster seat.

Are you actually retarded? The very first fucking sentence from the link you posted, says you’re wrong

>Altitude can be determined based on the measurement of atmospheric pressure. The greater the altitude, the lower the pressure.

Surely this is all for (you)s right? You cannot be this dumb.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

531726 No.643579

>>643567

>You said it's producing MORE LIFT with flaps down, than it did with flaps up. Given that knowledge, how the fuck is it landing with flaps down?

>LESS LIFT - FLYING LEVEL OR RISING IN ALTITUDE

>MORE LIFT - DESCENDING IN ALTITUDE AND LANDING

You seem to be under the impression that the amount of lift produced by the wing is the be-all, end-all of altitude control. You are completely wrong.

Consider a glider with extendible flaps, and in weather with no thermals (I'm sure the idea of a localized, rising column of air is inconceivable to your perfect equilibrium atmospheric model). It clearly must be descending, regardless of how much lift its wings are producing, since the reason it moves forward at all is by trading gravitational potential for motion. If it extends its flaps, lift increases. However, so does drag, meaning the aircraft has to trade more altitude to maintain its speed. This means it has to have a steeper flight path, even though it has more lift at a given speed. This is not a contradiction. Now assume that instead of being a glider, this aircraft had an engine that we had left on a low power setting, so that the previous cases still hold. You could, if you wanted, increase thrust to counteract the drag instead, meaning you don't have to nose down to trade altitude for speed. In that case, you instead have a shallower (or potentially level or climbing, with the right power and attitude) flight path, still at the same speed as the other two cases.

>all these mobs of (you) being retarded and not understanding basic flight physics.

You have multiple actual pilots in this thread telling you you're a retard who doesn't know fundamental theory of flight.

>>643577

He's an idiot, but you're also misunderstanding what he said. He claimed that if you pick an altitude (say, sea level) then the pressure is uniform at that altitude everywhere. He's not claiming pressure doesn't depend on altitude.

He is wrong though, since air has flows and eddies that cause and are caused by differences in pressure. This is true on scales from large weather systems (which is why pressure altimeters have an adjustment knob, and why weather reports always provide sea level pressure) down to scales that affect aircraft (turbulence due to wind around buildings, trees, etc).

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f3e4e0 No.643584

>>643579

>since the reason it moves forward at all is by trading gravitational potential for motion.

This isn’t true, gravitational potential only changes into downward kinetic energy, gravity only accelerated downwards. A bullet accelerates downwards while it’s x velocity it constant, of course there is air resistance so actually the bullet accelerates down and backwards after leaving the barrel, but x, y, & z components of motion are all independent. The glider moves forward because like a bomb it had the same foward velocity as the plane that carried it forward, only lift decreases gravitational acceleration (which I suppose is heavily dependent on forward motion as a glider dropped from a static helicopter would just fall downwards)

>you're also misunderstanding what he said. He claimed that if you pick an altitude (say, sea level) then the pressure is uniform at that altitude everywhere. He's not claiming pressure doesn't depend on altitude.

Ah, I see.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

531726 No.643586

>>643584

>downward kinetic energy

Energy is not a vector; there is no such thing as "downward" energy.

To give a more detailed description of what's going on, gravity pulls the aircraft down, but interactions with the air flow are what pushes it forward as well. If you simply drop a glider, it still ends up with some forward motion for that same reason. Try it with a paper airplane. The lift vector isn't in the same direction as the gravity vector; when the glider is descending there is a forward component as well as a vertical component, which is what serves as thrust. In general for an airplane, level flight is not when lift counters gravity, but when the vertical components of lift and thrust counteract gravity. It's convenient for basic explanations of theory of flight to treat the four forces as direct pairs (thrust directly opposite drag and lift directly opposite gravity, and with a common centre for each pair) but they're not really.

The reason I wrote in terms of energy transfer instead of forces is for that very reason. Overall that is what's happening, but if you express it in terms of forces it's more roundabout.

If a glider's forward motion just depended on its release, then it would constantly be slowing down due to drag. In reality the speed of a given glider depends simply on attitude, not on the time of flight on the speed when it released from tow.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f3e4e0 No.643618

>>643584

>If a glider's forward motion just depended on its release, then it would constantly be slowing down due to drag

That doesn’t happen? I thought gliders has to nose down slightly to build up speed to maintain lift.

>Energy is not a vector; there is no such thing as "downward" energy.

Well energy isn’t really a “real” thing, it more of a book keeping means. At least in a physics sense. But gravitational potential will only convert to kinetic energy when an object has a downward component of its motion.

>The lift vector isn't in the same direction as the gravity vector; when the glider is descending there is a forward component as well as a vertical component, which is what serves as thrust.

Admittedly I only vaguely know how planes work since we learned that in grade 6 or 7, I’m first year in uni physics so it’s mostly Newtonian physics in simple situations, like we learned in early high school physics, just replacing formulas with claclulus. I suppose I shouldn’t have commented since I hardly know shit about flight.

>In general for an airplane, level flight is not when lift counters gravity, but when the vertical components of lift and thrust counteract gravity.

Ah, I thought lift from the wings was the only opposition to gravity and lift was only achieved by a forward velocity. Pardon the retardation

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8262a3 No.643625

File: 28039fb7aeb04cd⋯.jpg (83.88 KB,800x522,400:261,subterrene1648276.jpg)

File: bff2cec1d2688e0⋯.jpg (112.29 KB,1200x675,16:9,subterrene18-забытых-изобр….jpg)

File: 0bf4a2fa5c8e73a⋯.pdf (1.57 MB,subt Systems and Cost Anal….pdf)

File: 0b517576b6c8746⋯.pdf (3.19 MB,subt.pdf)

Nuclear subterrenes.

>The “Battle mole" project was more classified than even the Soviet nuclear project, and details about it remain sketchy. What is known, however, is that Nikita Khrushchev, who led the USSR through much of the ‘Cold War,’ actively supported the project.

>That a secret underground plant for production of subterrines was built in Ukraine is also known. And, in 1964, the first Soviet subterrine nuclear reactor, dubbed "Battle mole" was unveiled.

>Little information is available about this reactor except that the subterrine had a stretched titanium cylindrical body with a pointed end and a powerful drill. According to sources, the size of the atomic subterrine ranged between three and almost four metres in diameter and 25 and 35 meters in length. The speed at which it could move underground was between 7 kms / hour and 15 kms / hour.

>Also, available data indicates that the nuclear physicist Andrei Sakharov was involved with the creation of this machine, possibly with development of the original soil crushing and propulsion system technology. The ‘cavitation’ flow created around the battle mole’s body reduced friction and enabled it to bore through granite and basalt.

>The crew of the "Battle mole" consisted of five people. The machine could additionally carry up to 15 paratroopers and about a ton of cargo; explosives or weaponry. These combat vehicles were designed to destroy fortifications, underground bunkers, command posts and missile launchers located inside mines. The "Battle moles" were prepared to carry out a special mission.

>According to the Soviet Union’s military command, the plan was that if relations with the United States deteriorated beyond a point, the subterrines could be used for an underground strike on America.

>The “Battle moles" would be brought on submarines to the coastal waters of the seismically unstable California to drill underground inside the USA and install underground nuclear charges in areas where American strategic facilities were located.

>The activation of the nuclear mines in the region would provoke powerful earthquakes and tsunamis, all of which would be considered natural disasters.

>According to some reports, test runs of the Soviet nuclear subterrine were carried out in different geological conditions; in suburban Moscow’s soils, in the Rostov region and in the Urals. Witnesses who observed the tests were most struck by the capabilities the subterrine demonstrated in the Ural mountains. The "battle mole" easily bit into hard rock and destroyed the underground target.

>However, a tragedy occurred during the repeated trials. For reasons unknown, the machine exploded deep within the bowels of the Urals, killing the entire crew. Shortly thereafter, the project was shelved.

https://www.rbth.com/arts/2015/06/16/khrushchev_ordered_battle_moles_to_blow_up_america_43677

http://atomic-skies.blogspot.com/2012/07/those-magnificent-men-and-their-atomic.html

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e13967 No.643632

>>643625

I want to call bullshit simply because it's so cartoonish, but frankly I don't know enough about the physics or technology involved to do with with any real justification.

If it ever worked to any appreciable degree, what are the odds the project was really discontinued? Or that the US continued it?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bab5a1 No.643636

>>643632

US have similar technology, they use them to build DUMBs

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

b8b445 No.643641

>>643625

Id say its kinda bullshit since the drills would get fucked after one kilometer of digging or so

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a74fe0 No.643644

>>643636

Yeah, it reminded me immediately about the theories involving those supposed nuclear tunneling machines that build these DUMBs stuffed full of aliens who eat homeless people.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

26daf8 No.643655

File: b855d3e1b1cddcd⋯.jpg (193.56 KB,1920x1280,3:2,He_100.jpg)

The He-100 is a pretty good example I'd say. The speed of a rocketship with the durability of a water balloon.

>>643567

>You said it's producing MORE LIFT with flaps down, than it did with flaps up. Given that knowledge, how the fuck is it landing with flaps down?

I like how you complain about being taken out of context, then proceed to ignore the qualifying phrase "at a given speed".

>Except you morons are stating the wing is producing MORE lift as a result of the flaps, not less. I'm the one stating that flaps down produces no increase in lift compared to flaps up.

So NASA, the Smithsonian, the FAA and Wikipedia are all just wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flap_(aeronautics)

<Flaps are a type of high-lift device used to increase the lift of an aircraft wing at a given airspeed.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

472058 No.643697

>>643655

>So NASA, the Smithsonian, the FAA and Wikipedia are all just wrong?

Wouldn't be the first fucking time, quit arguing from authority.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

26daf8 No.643700

File: 2dfc3b25e4e5058⋯.jpg (168.5 KB,900x621,100:69,afgdcvbdfg.jpg)

File: f57993d71cb4318⋯.jpg (69.13 KB,1024x535,1024:535,afdbbvc.jpg)

Big-gun submarines, for all their impracticality had a damn good aesthetic.

>>643697

Jesus fuck you're stupid. If you had just admitted you were wrong half a dozen posts ago you would have looked much more respectful.

>quit arguing from authority

You've already shown you'll just flat out ignore people explaining the mechanics of flight to you, what else is there to do?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

472058 No.643701

>>643700

>flat out ignore people explaining the mechanics of flight to you

And now you're arguing from what, ad populum? And trying for classic jew "quit doing what im doing" as well.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

26daf8 No.643702

>>643701

>explaining the mechanics of flight is now a fallacy during a discussion of flight mechanics

Sure thing friend. Funny thing is, I haven't seen you provide a SINGLE source to back up your bizarre claim that flaps have nothing to do with lift, whereas I have provided multiple. Oh, right, you consider sources to be an argument from authority.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

35ad8f No.643705

Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Is this the designated "science thread" now?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bcc030 No.643708

>>643625

For Christ sake, your second source on the so called "soviet battle mole" proves the whole thing was an April fools joke from "popular mechanics magazine" and has no bearing in the real world.

>>643700

>every time someone tried putting big guns on submarines they ended up getting rammed by someone and sinking in peacetime

Feels bad man.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

89cd66 No.643709

>>643705

How can a Hungarian of all nationalities be so mathematically illiterate?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f3e4e0 No.643719

>>643705

This video game me illiteracy.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2c95dc No.643729

>>643709

Don't be racist, mate. Being mongoloid does not necessarily mean you're good at math.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3d3e2f No.644592

>>641751

>That PPSH

>"I swear this has never happened to me before comrade!"

>"Let's just cuddle for a bit and see how I'm doing in ten minutes"

>"No, of course it's not you! Look, I just had a hell of a day and maybe tonight's not the best night, you know"

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

0d476d No.644604

>>643709

Shitty post-soviet education system gives us the bad math.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

434a95 No.654055

those might have been pretty good against Jap infantry who lacked anti-armor weapons.>>638947

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

434a95 No.654056

might have been good if their role as anti-commerce had ever happened.

sink freighters from nice safe distance fast using proven gun VS limited torpedoes.>>643700

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

434a95 No.654060

File: d7e70139e462df9⋯.jpg (209.57 KB,800x600,4:3,XC-142_landing_on_USS_Benn….jpg)

this is what they should've stuck with. Had a few issues but nothing that sounds unfix-able (vibration in prototypes can be fixed) Top speed of 431mph! 3800mile max range (ferry range). Totally BTFO the Osprey. You could refuel this with a 707 tanker same time as you refuel a B-52 or F-4.

Not only can it takeoff massively overloaded due to ability to fully rotate wing, but if it gets shot or can't rotate for vert landing its still 100% GTO for normal landing.

First flight 1964 just before the 'copter assplosion in 'Nam.

But I guess unlike the "iconic" Huey it didn't have LBJ's Lady Bird as a major stock holder so military "lost interest".

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

434a95 No.654065

>>638886

>Aerodynamic and Rocketry studies aside I can't really think how plane related was ever supposed to be viable in its intended role outside a fantasy world where the concept of bomber escorts didn't exist.

>

>They should've put their effort into RATO instead, but alas.

>

>>>638874

>

>The naval Battleship autism of the 1920s made sense considering that Aircraft only became a serious threat to big boats during the late 1930s, but who in their right mind thought building-sized tanks wouldn't be a massive bomber+artillery magnet?

Me-163 much faster than any escorts (until it had to glide back to base) and (in theory) didn't have all the complex engine that required hi-grade gas.

Brits did study during WW2 and found that even the "more accurate than bombs" rocket equiped later model Hawker fighter-bombers missed even undefended tanks in an open field all day long. IIRC the post-WW1 idea was that a "moving fortress" would win an artillery dual against soft-target served field guns who couldn't function around even anti-personal shrapnel.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

434a95 No.654068

File: 65f33d32a547a16⋯.jpg (591.82 KB,2560x1894,1280:947,91O5nQ9jZTL.jpg)

those sound actually pretty good IMO and only had a couple solvable issues.

One was the gap between max range of 152mm low vel gun and the min range of the 152mm guided missile the gun could fire, which the Gooks in 'Nam figured out how to exploit. Another was that the laser gun site was knocked out of alignment by the main gun's firing.

But it was airborne, could swim, was small and fast and could sport 2 .50cal in addition to big beefy 152mm for infantry support.

>>639984

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c82417 No.654069

>>654056

>>654055

>>654060

>>654065

>>654068

For fucks sake, where did you come from?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

434a95 No.654071

File: d7c1fcfd345b20a⋯.jpg (20.49 KB,480x360,4:3,hqdefault.jpg)

hear is ah goot van!

9 BILLION dollars for a ship who's main mission was "shore bombardment" with 6" shells which themselves cost over a million EACH. But at around 100miles its still well within range of low end anti-ship missiles of all sorts.

One thing I don't "get" about these steath claims: "15,000ton ship with radar sig of fishing boat". Yeah? but the enemy missiles still know where it is, right?

Well, the ditched the shore bombardment with the multi-million bullets, but then it breaks down in the Panama Canal because the engines are crap. What you expect for 9 billion? You know all them beaners down in Panama were LMFAO at the big ugly 9 BILLION boondoggle.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

434a95 No.654073

File: e13beaa1f7d0acf⋯.jpg (10.08 KB,275x183,275:183,index.jpg)

then we got this POS that looks like it was designed as stop-gap by Indian and Pakis about late 1960s (and may well have been).

Modern air combat and ESPECIALLY carrier is all about RANGE and how loaded you can take off. Ski-jump means your boys are already way behind the curve since they can't launch with max fuel (or weapons). Even better, they only got one launch ramp, and the jets need a long run to use it. In contrast a REAL (USN since Korean War) carrier has 2 or THREE cats that can launch fully loaded jets regardless or which way the wind is blowing (yeah, that HMS Shit NEEDS to head into wind when launching 2nd rate not-quite mission ready jets…who need to refuel from another not quite full tanker).

Seriously, WTF is so god damn hard about putting a proper cat on a carrier in this day and age. I've run the numbers myself and a few dozen commercially available electric vehicles ganged together with their drive tires on a common shaft could spool a cable strong and fast enough to launch a REAL carrier plane like a Super Hornet. And a bunch of Teslas or WTF already got good electronic control that would easy to adapt to launching jets from 0-200mph in 200ft.

Oh well, I guess the ramp makes it less usable as a helicopter carrier, and that is something at least.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

434a95 No.654079

File: 7ddb8659ce4d190⋯.jpg (75 KB,800x543,800:543,v1.jpg)

File: e3fb664d9269af1⋯.jpg (1.72 KB,32x32,1:1,v2.jpg)

File: e3fb664d9269af1⋯.jpg (1.72 KB,32x32,1:1,v4.jpg)

VS 5 was an experimental semi-submersible torpedo boat (Versuchs Schnellboot) completed in 1941 and based on a 1938 patent by a Berlin dentist. The intended armament included two 21in torpedo tubes and two 2cm cannon. Its fate after 1941 is unknown.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

434a95 No.654081

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bcc030 No.654087

File: 346d771f0c53a3e⋯.jpg (10.56 KB,320x320,1:1,Grit unsettled.jpg)

>>654079

>the krauts actually made a boot shaped boot

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

6eabf3 No.654088

>>654070

I'd like him if he replied to the posts

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8c9795 No.654103

>>654073

>WTF is so god damn hard about putting a proper cat on a carrier in this day and age.

Those F-35Bs won't sell themselves.

I'm still mad no one outside of France is using the Rafale-M, easily the best carrier fighter in active service and would've been perfect for the Queen Elizabeth regardless of CAT.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

911b65 No.654134

>>643625

>>643708

Shut up yank, let me dream of land submersibles silently hunting landships.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

518afc No.654141

File: 1eb5ef68caedc12⋯.jpg (57.01 KB,1280x720,16:9,autistic_fascination.jpg)

>>654134

>land submersibles silently hunting landships.

Your autism intrigues me. Do these landships and landsubs by chance have to deal landseamonsters such as giant landshark and montrous landsquids etc?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

541aa8 No.654157

>>643708

>>643625

>>643632

>For Christ sake, your second source on the so called "soviet battle mole" proves the whole thing was an April fools joke from "popular mechanics magazine" and has no bearing in the real world.

That one is a clear fake but the soviets DID have a project like that, AFAAK it never went anywhere past the drawing board but the concept existed.

First nuclear landmines are definitely a thing.

Second nuclear tunneling is ALSO a thing (US project Plowshare, while the soviets actually did deploy some to make various earthworks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy ).

Then tunnel boring machine do exist and they all use a tremendous amount of electricity.

So in the 1960's soviet "put nuclear reactors on everything" it makes sense, even for just civilian applications to make an autonomous tunnel boring machine (if you have to dig say a train tunnel in the middle of nowhere, which is Russia default mode, you have to bring the power supply with it so…) the same they had nuclear trains, nuclear ships and today nuclear mobile power stations that they at least looked into it.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

434a95 No.654179

>>654157

>>For Christ sake, your second source on the so called "soviet battle mole" proves the whole thing was an April fools joke from "popular mechanics magazine" and has no bearing in the real world.

>

>That one is a clear fake but the soviets DID have a project like that, AFAAK it never went anywhere past the drawing board but the concept existed.

Its like The Holocaust (tm)!

The Jews claimed the Nazis made them into lampshades and bars of soap, but then the Jews said that was all just made up.

But NOW….Jews are saying it has been recently discovered that some OTHER Nazi did indeed happen to do those exact same things somewhere else to some other Jews.

Same thing with that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Traficant#Defense_of_John_Demjanjuk

Wiki is not quite forecoming on the details. What happened in Israel is the case completely fell apart and even the Jews had to admit some other Jews were lying and it was wrong guy, etc.

Then, later, Jews in the US Govt found out he actually was a Nazi War Criminal, but at a completely different camp murdering a completely diff set of Jews!

Truly a story arc of Shakespeare proportions!

Any know of any prior use of this "guy wrongly accused of crime with entire world stacked against him, but in dramatic international trial he is found not just Not Guilty but fully acquitted as Mistaken ID….but then….after dogged detective work…he is found actually really guilty of exact same type of crime but at similar but diff location as story line? ???

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

b6e34d No.654234

>>641751

The second picture isn't a curved barrel weapon. It's a wood and plastic mock-rifle from H&K. This was one their caseless weapons, an LMG if I'm not mistaken. You'd hinge it open to load a block clip of several hundred rounds. It was not related to the G11 operating system, just something they were looking into around that time. It didn't go anywhere.

I believe the fourth pic shows a prototype M16 with a quick-detach barrel for use as an LMG. There was a belt-fed GPMG variant of the AR-10 that was rejected for being too fragile, and there have been several attempts to turn the AR-15 into an LMG.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ebeef8 No.654292

>>644592

I do wonder what the tactical purpose of a downward curving barrel is. I understand around the corner barrels. Was it meant to fire down from height, or were you supposed to hold the gun kind of vertically to shoot it over the top of a trench or something? I would bet down from heights for urban fighting.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2895bd No.654301

File: f870ea3d84596de⋯.png (161.25 KB,688x584,86:73,Untitled.png)

File: 10a928b879c3075⋯.png (74.25 KB,802x584,401:292,Untitled2.png)

>>654292

Maybe for shooting out from armoured vehicles?

Poke it out of a hole in the sloped part, and still be able to aim at guys on the ground nearby. It would let you use a smaller hole than a straight barrel, and one that would be harder for the enemy to shoot back through since they don't have line of sight down it. It would also save space inside the vehicle since the stock sticks out less in the cabin.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

6bd785 No.654305

>>639468

>>639086

How many guys would you need to produce enough cum filled balloons to be a useful psywar tool against … say … a large crowd of feminists?

>>654292

I'm guessing the idea was to use it for trench warfare, or urban combat where you need to fire (blind) over a wall. You'd think they could figure out an angled mirror sight to make the fire a little less blind, and useful for more than 'Ivan, suppress things (badly) in that general direction'.

>>654301

Holy shit, it's crazier and more autistic than I ever thought possible. That's what I love about this board.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8dcdd1 No.654317

>>654301

or maybe, since its better to shoot low due to ricocheting or however the fuck its called, and these red fucks having limited time for training troops so they git gud had a bright idea to make a gun that shoots low ALWAYS so even your typical 80 iq siberian peasant could do that

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ad4295 No.654318

>>654292

It was for tankers to fire from the hatch in the turret. It was scrapped because it's a terrible idea and useless if you're outside of the tank.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

434a95 No.654344

>>639069

SURE, anti-sub patrol anywhere outside of enemy aircraft range, particularly in the early years when U-boats had free reign in USA's heavily traffic South and East Coast routes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_Alley

These BLIMPS were well used and K-class not fully retired until 1950s.

If we'd had real airships that could shadow convoys all across The Pond until within range of RAF might have done a lot of good.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

434a95 No.654345

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

cf0b94 No.654361

File: 1b97e640c8f8460⋯.png (41.31 KB,800x407,800:407,beautiful rangey girl.png)

>>638309

Am I the only one who thinks the OTL Greif concept of glide bombing blockbuster levels of ordnance with low drag and high accuracy is perfectly sensible for a special production aircraft? The Me-261 Adolphine had no problems with the DB606 engine arrangement on cursory examination. Its engine nacelles extend further outside the wing and are visibly more ventilated, but don't seem any less robust. Nevermind the good sense in converting to a four-engined level bomber design for main Greif production; why not pursue the coupled engine glide bomber simultaneously, as a useful way to deliver mines, water skipping bombs, multiple torpedoes, or blockbuster bombs accurately? If you aren't constrained by jumping into mass production with an immature design while refusing parallel development of the four engine, then you're free to continue development until you get the coupled engine version right.

For that matter; the Adolphine itself. Why wasn't it developed properly? A super long-range recon craft, essentially a flying wingboard fuel tank with the eminent possibility of light bombing capacity on external mounts or in a small internal bay replacing the quarters for rotating crewmen on mega-ranged endurance missions. It can't mount wing guns, but it needn't and shouldn't anyways. It's not quite as long or winged as the Fw-200 but is a little taller, and citing the V3 prototype using the DB610 coupled engine, about 20% more powerful in raw engine capacity at 2133 kilowatts*2, 70% faster at a max speed of 620 km or 385 mph, 209% further ranged at 11,024km/6,850mi, has a 37% higher service ceiling of 8260m/27100ft, and cannot be in any way as fragile as the dodgily reinforced Condor, though I imagine pierced fuel tanks will be an epidemic annoyance. It also has mean tundra tires (with retractable gears so they aren't affecting flight) that'll chew up rougher airstrips in Norway. Or Russia, for that matter.

In other words, though this performance is all before additional bombload, it's the perfect super-range naval recon bomber and general fast recon craft developmentally available in this exact form in early '43 OTL, available in December 1940 in its only slightly lesser powered DB606 V1 & V2 forms, and concepted as early as 1937 as a carrier for the Olympic Flame, flying straight from Garmisch-Partenkirchen to Tokyo. This availability timeline was in spite of a feckless lack of interest outside of Hitler's direct early enthrallment with the concept, low apparent investment, and a near complete drop of work with the start of the war until late 1939 saw it resumed when somebody realized 'shit a super long range recon craft sounds useful.' If observed as useful and properly crash developed as a production aircraft, it handily replaces the Condor in the naval recon bomber role and can serve with exceptional distinction. And all the Condors that were used as fragile, awkward bombers and passable maritime patrollers can serve in their better role of heavy cargo craft.

That silly plane was still the Scourge of the Atlantic in Churchill's own words and wrecked shipping through low altitude bracket-bombing until the Allies had planes on the water to stop them from 1941 onwards. The militarized Adolphine, pending earlier development of a production ready DB 606 and final nacelle arrangement, will have a probably similar bomb capacity, with a massive boost to speed & range, similar or better maneuverability, and no doubt a better bombsight arrangement due to not getting an ersatz arrangement as a converted civilian liner design. It'll be able to continue bracket bombing with relative impunity with a lower exposure window and lesser target size, and I'll be bold in saying it's likely to simply outrun CAM ship Hurricanes as well as P-40s and possibly the early P-38s if they aren't burning WEP hard. A tanker sinking twin engined fly that can patrol over long range with near impunity and low interceptibility out to the deep Atlantic, sinking tens of thousands of tons all on its own before the submarines have been phoned in to get at the convoys, until sometime in 1943 where they'll have to play it cooler to avoid improving Allied twin-engines or extending fighter nets. Both problems in part mitigateable through its own operational successes in the shipping war.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

d9e558 No.654885

File: 014338228e389d9⋯.jpg (268.61 KB,1800x1230,60:41,Republic_XF-84H_in_flight.jpg)

All you airplane fucks

The XF-84H was quite possibly the loudest aircraft ever built (rivaled only by the Russian Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear" bomber[16]), earning the nickname "Thunderscreech" as well as the "Mighty Ear Banger".[17] On the ground "run ups", the prototypes could reportedly be heard 25 miles (40 km) away.[18] Unlike standard propellers that turn at subsonic speeds, the outer 24–30 inches (61–76 cm) of the blades on the XF-84H's propeller traveled faster than the speed of sound even at idle thrust, producing a continuous visible sonic boom that radiated laterally from the propellers for hundreds of yards. The shock wave was actually powerful enough to knock a man down; an unfortunate crew chief who was inside a nearby C-47 was severely incapacitated during a 30-minute ground run.[18] Coupled with the already considerable noise from the subsonic aspect of the propeller and the T40's dual turbine sections, the aircraft was notorious for inducing severe nausea and headaches among ground crews.[11] In one report, a Republic engineer suffered a seizure after close range exposure to the shock waves emanating from a powered-up XF-84H.[19]

The pervasive noise also severely disrupted operations in the Edwards AFB control tower by risking vibration damage to sensitive components and forcing air traffic personnel to communicate with the XF-84H's crew on the flight line by light signals. After numerous complaints, the Air Force Flight Test Center directed Republic to tow the aircraft out on Rogers Dry Lake, far from the flight line, before running up its engine.[14] The test program did not proceed further than the manufacturer's Phase I proving flights; consequently, no USAF test pilots flew the XF-84H. With the likelihood that the engine and equipment failures coupled with the inability to reach design speeds and subsequent instability experienced were insurmountable problems, the USAF cancelled the program in September 1956.[20]

After manufacture at Republic's Farmingdale, Long Island, plant, the two XF-84Hs were disassembled and shipped via rail to Edwards Air Force Base for flight testing.[2] First flown on July 22, 1955, the XF-84F had incredible acceleration but soon its impracticality was discovered. It was unsuited to combat due to the engine's 30 minute warm up time but the most serious concerns were vibration generated from the 12-foot propeller diameter and mechanical failures of the prop pitch gearing.[13] The prototypes flew a total of 12 test flights from Edwards, accumulating only 6 hours and 40 minutes of flight time. Lin Hendrix, one of the Republic test pilots assigned to the program, flew the aircraft once and refused to ever fly it again, claiming "it never flew over 450 knots (830 km/h) indicated, since at that speed, it developed an unhappy practice of 'snaking', apparently losing longitudinal stability".[14] Hendrix also told the formidable Republic project engineer, "You aren't big enough and there aren't enough of you to get me in that thing again".[13] The other test flights were fraught with engine failures, and persistent hydraulic, nose gear, and vibration problems.[2] Test pilot Hank Beaird took the XF-84H up 11 times, with 10 of these flights ending in forced landings.[15]

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2895bd No.654903

File: c73afbf38fce747⋯.gif (118.18 KB,95x79,95:79,Bane.gif)

>>654885

>Hendrix also told the formidable Republic project engineer, "You aren't big enough […] to get me in that [plane] again".

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

d9e558 No.654919

>>654914

The best I could do is say look into dope and fab for the techniques of manufacturing aviation parts old school style, then using known good physics designs to make patterns to manufacture. you can reasonably build airplanes with wood and canvas.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ce8862 No.654983

>>639286

These sorts of drive systems would've vulnerable to em pulses yes?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

55c224 No.655035

>>654983

No. Since the 50s all tanks and IFVs are designed to be immune to the effects of an electronmagnetic pulse. It's because they were designed for a nuclear battlefied. And all modern vehicles have electric motors and generators inside them to begin with. Besides, those EMP weapons from science-fiction don't exist.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4bd797 No.655070

>>654983

EMP is a fucking meme.

An EMP that is big enough to fry an electronic systems can only be generated from INSIDE the burning range of the atomic weapon.

An high altitude EMP could maybe take out a power grid… because a power grid is mostly airborne cables that act as one gigantic antenna.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

494db3 No.655072

>>655070

That'd be enough to crash inner city SoCal with no survivors.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

434a95 No.655160

>>654914

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawnchair_Larry_flight

IMO this would be one of the best Bug Out options. Seriously. Launch at night and in a few minutes you will be out of rifle range. Sure its a little risky but with a bit of planning you will have choice of landing zones on several hundred mile strip away from trouble/population. I'd want as least one extra tank and balloons to do one landing and re-launch. Wait for winds to change after initial "get out of Dodge" escape, then re-launch.

I'm also planning to use balloon or kite to hoist small repeater.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9faCP4rZbg

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3f2109 No.655162

>>655160

>"We know he broke some part of the Federal Aviation Act, and as soon as we decide which part it is, some type of charge will be filed."

>"If he had a pilot's license, we'd suspend that, but he doesn't."

New hard drive so I have no reaction image, so just imagine one of somebody laughing.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c05ab8 No.655465

>>655035

>>655070

Thanks guys. Fairly informative and logical.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

797662 No.661731

File: 143a6946afd12bf⋯.jpg (195.45 KB,1421x960,1421:960,a6d458f8483faab0dc309e994d….jpg)

File: 00ea8ad9b9a6ced⋯.jpg (93.49 KB,1280x720,16:9,MiG-1.44_Flatpack_Infinity….jpg)

File: 390a478939c113a⋯.jpg (55.94 KB,602x340,301:170,main-qimg-984c32ea014f0039….jpg)

Okay I need to know

Could the MiG 1.44/1.42 have actually been an efficient aircraft if the Soviet collapse didn't happen? This thing sounds like my dream fighter, but it also seems way too good to be true.

There are plenty of Su prototypes like the 47 where I can weigh the pros and cons, but I really don't know enough about the 1.44 to think of anything. At the very least, it's my favorite prototype.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a03afb No.661743

File: f4e9b3710cb0bd7⋯.jpg (283.14 KB,739x554,739:554,larry_walters.jpg)

>>655160

>He took his pellet gun, a CB radio, sandwiches, beer, and a camera

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

723938 No.661764

File: a6e60e034f9b0ee⋯.jpg (281.4 KB,1280x960,4:3,Heinkel_Lerche.jpg)

File: 37fad67d516b223⋯.jpg (38.5 KB,800x567,800:567,Fw Triebflügel.jpg)

While none of them progressed beyond the drawing board or scaled down wind tunnel testing, could any of the VTOL interceptor projects shat out by the Jägernotprogramm in the final months of WW2 have ever been practical?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7005f5 No.674704

>>643636

>US have similar technology, they use them to build DUMBs

Indeed, but you wouldn't believe the amount of dumb (heh) niggers denying the very existence of DUMBs…

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3d9426 No.674713

>>661731

>>661731

>This thing sounds like my dream fighter

Why so? Su-27 is way more beautiful.

>Could the MiG 1.44/1.42 have actually been an efficient aircraft

No because it did not offer many advantages over Su-27 family.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

15e78e No.674725

File: 65f8e48b6ed7aa2⋯.jpg (115.32 KB,1024x772,256:193,D4LYvllU8AABArk.jpg)

File: 312e630626d57f2⋯.jpg (39.06 KB,471x406,471:406,D4LYwMoU4AECv5s.jpg)

File: 5ea058d1c39d31c⋯.jpg (77.38 KB,720x577,720:577,IMG_20190415_064927.jpg)

File: b2adb1dc76d20cd⋯.jpg (72.82 KB,800x598,400:299,D04Ww1MWkAAv7n9.jpg)

File: a987ce2a4f201f7⋯.jpg (40.65 KB,800x367,800:367,D04Wx7AWoAAUR7w.jpg)

You guys know what's cool? Nose mounted guns.

You know what's cooler? Nose mounted guns that can swivel to engage any target in front of you.

You know what's even cooler? Have enough rockets and missiles sticking out of that nose that you unironically look like a 40K Ork Fighta-Bomma. Alternatively have wing rocket launchers.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

03b4d0 No.674728

File: 40a3a973bc4560b⋯.png (445.26 KB,600x377,600:377,ClipboardImage.png)

>>674725

Don't forget air-to-air nuclear weapons.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

361e94 No.674751

>>639810

Underrated.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

361e94 No.674757

>>654103

I'm constantly furious that we will never buy Rafales or MiG-31's for our chairforce. A man can dream, though…

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

66f319 No.674770

File: 2ccd0da29b8581b⋯.png (654.02 KB,786x771,262:257,fake_semen.png)

>How many guys would you need to produce enough cum filled balloons to be a useful psywar tool against … say … a large crowd of feminists?

The average dude produces 2-5ml per ejaculation, and the average water balloon has roughly 45ml of water in it, so it would take about 9-20ish guys to fill one semen balloon. If you don't care about freshness, a small company of soldiers could probably produce a decent number of semen balloons in the course of 2-3 months to deal with a feminist rally if you collected from them about once every 2 or 3 days and fed them a zinc and coconut water-rich diet.

Alternatively you could use Methyl Cellulose or make food-grade fake semen that will turn if left out for a day or two. Pic related.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

66f319 No.674771

>>674770

I also have it on good authority that you should use sour cream instead of yogurt if you want it to taste more "authentic."

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a04fb0 No.674821

>>674728

The Genie made perfect sense when you consider the state of missile technology back in 1954. The USAF rightly feared that their cutting-edge AAM then under development would turn out to be an unreliable piece of shit, so they tried to come up with a standoff anti-bomber weapon that used as many proven technologies as possible.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

81e651 No.674900

File: 2e90eac6378d22c⋯.jpg (58.91 KB,1280x720,16:9,slavwithrifle.jpg)

>>674770

I would say it's not worth it to use semen as the ZOGs would get your DNA. Image unrelated.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

66f319 No.674941

>>674900

Hence the fake semen counterpart (which I've been told has a distinct smell that would trick anyone but the most whorish of women into thinking it's the same thing).

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

03b4d0 No.675327

File: d42ac4347294855⋯.png (364.07 KB,771x472,771:472,ClipboardImage.png)

Would one or more completed Graf Zeppelin class aircraft carriers have been a meme as far as the battle of the Atlantic is concerned?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3d9426 No.675329

>>675327

Krauts' aeronautic tech edge was their main, if not only, advantage in terms of weaponry and the their lack of surface fleet their most notable deficiency. A carrier could have used the previous to counter the later. The only problem with Graf Zeppelin was that it wasn't a zeppelin.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3d9426 No.675330

>>674941

Just add chlorine.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ba93b9 No.675331

>>675327

Probably. It would probably be sunk just like the Bismarck was before it reached a port where it could operate from. The U-boot strategy was much more efficient than any surface fleet plan.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

363caa No.675382

>>675327

I think it would have been pretty effective.

>fast

>decently armored

>very good AA

>we already know German pilots are very good

If they had kept to the original construction schedule, it would have been ready for operation Rheinübung, and would have been a pretty decisive advantage.

Of course, this doesn't guarantee that operation Rheinübung would have been successful or even a good idea, considering how the British scrambled fucking everything.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

b8baec No.675386

>>638890

Mecha actually could fill a couple niches. that is of material handling, light weapons carriers for foot mobile infantry, and in general operating in terrain typical vehicles can't get to, such as mountains like in afghanistan, dense forrest like in vietnam, and completely destroyed cityscapes like in stalingrad.

although not in the giant gundam and battlemech style, more like powered suits or like a skidsteer on legs.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

03b4d0 No.675417

File: 57ff90cd6506dd1⋯.png (121.75 KB,776x206,388:103,ClipboardImage.png)

>>675382

Say, why'd all the planned german aircraft carriers carry a fairly small complement of aircraft relative to their size?

When the Nips converted the Scharnhorst to the Shin'yo it carried 33 planes even though the planned german Jade-class conversions were to carry only 24.

Were the Ju-87Cs simply too big or did Germans lack experience in the finer aspects of carrier construction?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bcc030 No.675423

>>675382

Well, when you own every airfield in Europe and you aren't planning any transoceanic attacks, why would you need one? You can already strike anywhere in the UK and when you still had planes and pilots to spare, the arctic convoys could be attacked too.

Which goes into the second point that German pilots WERE very good. Like the Japs they made one critical mistake with their air powers which was having no rotation on their pilots. The best of the best kept flying until they were killed or captured. Losing all of their techniques and skills they had to make it to the top with them. American aces were rotated back to the states where they were turned into flight instructors, teaching new pilots their skills and flying styles so they came onto the battlefield with an inherently better understanding of air combat while the replacement German and Jap pilots were mere conscripts that had to learn in battle or die.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

187744 No.675425

File: 554d706bd4457d5⋯.png (195.59 KB,1459x763,1459:763,I was unaware Kancolle was….png)

>>675417

>googled Shinyo

>got this

I'm fucking laughing my ass off.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

15e78e No.675430

File: d0fe7714bca385d⋯.png (196.52 KB,470x537,470:537,fadfbadbafdfbad.PNG)

>>675423

Japan had the issue is that they only accepted the best of the best. I remember one video I saw showing that less than 5% of applicants were accepted into flight academies and less than half of those graduated. Japan also knew that a long war was doomed to fail, so they probably saw it as a better idea to keep their air groups operating at peak levels as long as they could. Of course, the issue with that is once you fall off that peak, it's a long and fast trip down.

>>675425

You think that's bad?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

03b4d0 No.675431

File: 3c17f0c11d74afd⋯.png (708.52 KB,800x600,4:3,ClipboardImage.png)

>>675423

> when you own every airfield in Europe and you aren't planning any transoceanic attacks

>transoceanic attacks

In the event that neither Dunkirk nor Barbarossa happened with Bongs driven out of the mediterranean following the loss of both the Suez and Gibraltar leading to either optimistic prospects for Unternehmen Seelöwe or a successful invasion+surrender of the UK, the Graf Zeppelin along with other german and Italian aircraft carriers could certainly have been used as semi fleet-in-being burger deterrents in the Atlantic to ease logistical pressure on the Japs and raid the occasional lend-lease convoy heading to the Soviet Union/renegade Anglo colonies or even provide escorts for picrel.

>>675425

Based but why are (You) still using jewgle in CY+4.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

363caa No.675435

>>675417

That's a problem as you often can't tell if they're comparing optimum, planned, or storage complement.

But I did a tiny bit of digging, so lets compare the Ark Royal and the Graf Zeppelin

Graf Zeppelin: 5,450m² hangar with 42 aircraft

Ark Royal: : 5,690m² hangar with 60 Aircraft

So the Graf Zeppelin should absolutely be able to carry more aircraft, likely the same with the Jade class.

Graf Zeppelin is heavier, but not massively so, considering it was planned to carry 16x150mm guns and was faster than Ark Royal.

Of course, this doesn't even go into sortie rates.

>>675423

>You can already strike anywhere in the UK and when you still had planes and pilots to spare, the arctic convoys could be attacked too.

True, (purpose built) long range naval bombers were the best solution, arguably a better idea than uboats.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

187744 No.675444

>>675430

2D is life, 2D is love.

>>675431

I like to feed random shit, and I mean random shit into the great communist botnet so I can say I played my part in fucking it.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

03b4d0 No.675466

File: 09465715ae8024d⋯.jpg (75.1 KB,900x1154,450:577,Aircraft_Carrier_AA.jpg)

>>675435

>small amount of aircraft carried

>fucktons of AA compared to other carriers of its time

I see what they were going with.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

03b4d0 No.675522

File: 9ab4402b9969772⋯.jpg (220.1 KB,750x701,750:701,Hiryuu question.jpg)

>>675466

On that train of thought, would constructing destroyer-sized carrier escort vessels whose sole armament consists of as many AA guns one can fit have been a meme or reasonable investment at the time?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

06db17 No.675536

>>675522

> would constructing destroyer-sized carrier escort vessels whose sole armament consists of as many AA guns one can fit have been a meme or reasonable investment at the time?

Aren't guided missile destroyers essentially that? Besides also having a role in anti-ship and anti-ballisitic missile roles, they carry SAMs.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2eb349 No.675539

File: 5f17977962522be⋯.jpg (760.25 KB,665x390,133:78,1.jpg)

>>661731

They would install shitty engines into it, re-skin it, and turn it into a bomber.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

15e78e No.675545

File: f671591632ba935⋯.jpg (4.95 MB,5173x3858,5173:3858,USS_Atlanta_(CL-51)_steami….jpg)

>>675522

That's pretty much the Atlanta-class, which could put out over 17,000lbs of flak into the sky per minute.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f689b4 No.675581

>>675431

>Gibraltar

The Germans notably avoided action that would bring Spain and Portugal into the war, (hence the blue division fighting only in the east) what was the plan to preserve this in a fight over Gibraltar?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4eb1ee No.676446

>>675581

IMO Hitler's biggest mistake (besides not actually solving the Jewish Problem) was not leaning on Franco to at least allow some "fanatics" to take over The Rock and declare it for Spain or even "independent" but more or less seal that end of the Med for Axis with Vichy Tangier being the controlling coastal fort/port.

Sink a couple ships in Seuz, and prevent salvage, and Med becomes an Axis lake.

A feckless Mexican like Franco could even fake trying to battle the "rebels", he could even allow UK troops onto Spanish land, then let them get fucked up. Nothing worse than a Spic who is pretending to want to help you.

Play it like "Ok, its British territory, but only if de-militarized". Put some Spic muscle in the ground and make sure ALL the most odious British Law is enforced to the max on the locals.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

03b4d0 No.676456

File: 8699b37fa9fad77⋯.png (2.78 MB,1400x1197,200:171,ClipboardImage.png)

>>676446

Could an Allied invasion of Spain+Portugal prior to 1943 have had any good chances of success for (((them)))?

Anglos would surely be quite butthurt at losing access to their preferred naval supply route to Asia and press for an invasion of mainland Europe right away lest Nippon sinks their Asian fleets with no survivors.

If the Anglo went at it "alone" could such a large scale invasion have opened big enough gaps in their own defences for a Sea Lion to pass through?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1927b5 No.676462

>>676456

>>676446

You buds are forgetting that during ww2 Spain relied on Allied goods to survive.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a13b0a No.677316

>Flexible decks

An idea tested, but never put into service, was the flexible or inflated, air-cushioned, "rubber deck". In the early jet age it was recognised that eliminating the landing gear for carrier borne aircraft would improve the flight performance and range, since the space taken by the landing gear could be used to hold additional fuel tanks. This led to the concept of a deck that would absorb the energy of landing. With the introduction of jet aircraft the risk of damaging propellers was no longer an issue, though take off would require some sort of launching cradle. Tests were carried out with a de Havilland Sea Vampire flown by test pilot Eric "Winkle" Brown onto a flexible deck fitted to HMS Warrior. The deck consisted of a rubberised sheet fully supported on multiple layers of pressurised fire hose. Supermarine designed its Type 508 for rubber deck landings. The flexible deck idea was found to be technically feasible but was abandoned, as the weight of carrier aircraft increased and there were always doubts about the ability of an average pilot to land in this way.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

d3a020 No.677357

File: 09f834e4e49cc87⋯.png (1.5 MB,1059x1441,1059:1441,ClipboardImage.png)

What in the goddamn were Nips smoking when drawing up bomber designs, they make Italian WW2 bombers look good.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4f1c83 No.677358

>>677357

What's wrong with them? That aeroplane on your picture seems to be rather comfy.

t. not a planefag

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8f5331 No.677360

>>677358

This but needs more windows.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fbcd8a No.677386

>>638893

>Then the soviets made the T-34, a cavalry tank that could spearhead an attack or support the infantry, and that started an arms race that led to the MBT

Yes this is the first case of a tank ever being able to support two roles, it revolutionized tanks with sloped armor, and it made everyone jealous of the glorious soviets and so many other things the kremlin told me

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

d3a020 No.677396

>>677358

They all eschewed >1000kg bombloads in favor of m-muh 6000km range, a complete lack of self-sealing fuel tanks until 1943 notwithstanding.

Even Italian bombers carried 2-3 tons of bomb by the time of the Allied landings in Sicily.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c9c211 No.677424

>>677396

In a place like the Pacific, range really does matter, friend. Italy and Germany only had to bomb out a place you could get to on a bicycle. Japan had to bomb places a continent and a half away.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

b10c1b No.677642

>>677386

I have never seen such anal devastation

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

d3a020 No.677646

>>677424

That doesn't excuse their unwillingness to produce short ranged versions with enlarged bomb bays when the Allies were starting to occupy Islands within surfboard range in the Philippines and elsewhere.

If only the H8K had reached mass production as a frontline bomber the glorious 大日本帝國 would've brought an end to the Allies in no time.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a13b0a No.677705

File: 6ebb8218a5db17c⋯.png (108.29 KB,2090x1051,2090:1051,file.png)

File: ef4dd4d66d83a23⋯.jpg (157.92 KB,497x636,497:636,SNECMA_Coléoptère_on_ramp_….jpg)

>This "self-protecting CVAN" was sketched in 1955 as part of a BuShips attempt to forecast warship possibilities. It suggests the promise of VTOL technology (presumably based on the Bell X-13, which was partly funded by the navy, and which could have landed in the "VTOL nets" abaft the island) and of the new surface-to-air missiles.

>The power plant would have duplicated that of the new Enterprise. Its dimensions were 990 feet (wl), 1030 feet (oa), by 132 feet wl by 36 feet, for a light ship displacement of 64875 tons (81150 tons fully loaded).

>Self-defense would have been achieved with the two Talos launchers (fore and aft of the island) and four Terriers (in quadrants).

>With three C 7 catapults, the CVAN would have operated conventional aircraft as well as VTOLs; her air group was listed as eight heavy bombers (A3D size), twenty-four VTOL interceptors, four night fighters (F3H-1N) and sixteen ASW helicopters (HRZS).

>Note that the carrier had no sonar and no ASW missile battery, although she would operate without escorting ships.

>Costs were estimated as $375 million for the lead ship and $340 million for the follow ships. In fact the must simpler Enterprise cost about 451 million, without defensive missiles.

And also let's take a look at a French VTOL aircraft.

>>677646

>>677396

Remember that for the Bettys, adding just self-sealing tanks would have nearly cut their range in half. Japanese aircraft tended to be built to the very limits, with little room for upgrades.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

322b08 No.677708

>>661764

You can always look into RC plane communities, many of them love building late prototypes.

I remember seeing multiple Arado E.555 version that all handled suprisingly well.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

84d0d9 No.677738

File: f454acfeb7d95bc⋯.png (179.89 KB,250x365,50:73,ClipboardImage.png)

>>640160

>It was fucking disgusting from square one so who cares?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f5ddfb No.677772

Will it be possible to control the air transportation with our minds? I think the immobile people will be useful as the robot mind controllers and the soldiers can summon for more air supports at anytime.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c4245b No.677777

>>640524

>being retarded

>be literally lower Germans

>sympathizing for subhumans

Read >>640184 and apply yourself.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f5ddfb No.677782

>>640184

Poor dogs.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

d3a020 No.677787

File: 1ed742f23de57e5⋯.png (183.47 KB,701x574,701:574,Doubles_King.png)

>>677777 (checked)

Digits of truth.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

69ffc3 No.677908

File: 9a96a76c9775f3d⋯.jpg (49.73 KB,630x495,14:11,lloyd triplane.jpg)

File: b8a4f02ec03c3de⋯.jpg (79.35 KB,640x436,160:109,lloydfj40.08.jpg)

Much of WW1 aviation was rather questionable in a hindsight. But powered heavier-than-air flight was a younger technology than most pilots were, so things like the Lloyd Luftkreuzer did tend to happen.

Also, the Lloyd 40.08 was [spoiler]Hungarian

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

69ffc3 No.677912

File: 32f41b790d63997⋯.jpg (103.18 KB,475x328,475:328,floh2.jpg)

File: fe03a02fbc52283⋯.jpg (47.96 KB,700x374,350:187,floh1.jpg)

File: d1d727d4a620cf7⋯.jpg (45.83 KB,600x346,300:173,floh5.jpg)

File: ed897c090d719af⋯.jpg (69.33 KB,815x489,5:3,dfw floh.jpg)

Good day my fellow aircraft. As you can quite see, I am also an aircraft. I am one of you. Being an aircraft I enjoy doing aircraft things like utilizing the laws of aerodynamics to attain flight.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

438814 No.677958

>>677912

happy plane

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

69ffc3 No.677974

File: 7a3f5e7b3f897d9⋯.jpg (34.5 KB,600x922,300:461,happy stuka.jpg)

>>677958

Will kill you and everyone you love. Happily.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4eb1ee No.682905

>>676456

iffty/50.

On one hand you got always feckless Spics, on the other hand they fighting on home ground and most had exp. from recent Civil War.

On the other other hand you'd have lots of guys who lost Civil War wanting to aid Allies.

On the other hand its lots of rough terrain and tough infantry war of attrition and supply.

But IMO Hitler could've leaned on Franco and Spain would be bristling with pro-Nazi armed militia to ward off any invasion.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

adf7b0 No.682913

>>675522

Horizon-class of the french and Italian navy are just that, dedicated AA destroyers.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

adf7b0 No.682915

>>682913

Italian version has like 3x OTO 76/62 Strales and 2x 25m OTO-Oerlikon KBA to compliment it's fair (and diverse) assortment of AA missiles.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

900dd6 No.683765

File: f14c9848cb77f64⋯.jpg (161.77 KB,865x648,865:648,default.jpg)

>>638309

PANJANDRUM

>oi my fellow Brits, how are we going to blow up the german bunkers during D-day

> just take some weird axel and strap a few rockets to it

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

183136 No.683891

File: b5419d93a75dc4d⋯.png (3.6 MB,1800x1000,9:5,ClipboardImage.png)

>>683765

Is that a newborn Tsar tank?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c12005 No.683918

File: 3ee8cd5ce08c94e⋯.jpg (175.66 KB,1300x956,325:239,penny-farthing-bicycle-rid….jpg)

>>683891

Did this shit have eleven Maxims in it?

Also this reminds me of a penny-farthing. Was it supposed to drive over trenches like potholes, or roll down the eastern plains and steppes real speedy?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1fe05a No.683925

File: bbecc6d81d2aa9f⋯.jpg (758.04 KB,1058x1505,1058:1505,1341762879865.jpg)

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

183136 No.687140

File: 140e76c45376f0d⋯.jpg (9.95 MB,5515x4271,5515:4271,Artist's_impression_of_the….jpg)

Was the concept of a large flush decked strategic bomber carrier sensible for its time?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

525933 No.687142

>>687140

Post-WWII American Navy was really interesting, with getting entirely shafted by crippling budget cuts and the Revolt of the Admirals. While I think the idea was technically viable, I have to assume that the Army/Air Force were right that it would be prohibitively expensive to put them out there in any great numbers.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

56ea0b No.687144

>>683925

Steampunk needs more media exploration, it's such a potentially fun setting.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c61f3d No.687146

>>687144

I wouldn't call myself a fan of steampunk, but I will say it's the healthiest way to prepare punk.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

6ef075 No.687191

>>687140

>>687142

Elaborate on the concept please?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

183136 No.687210

>>687191

The USN had ordered 5 large flush decked supper carriers before the Project was canceled in 1949, 5 days later after the first carrier's keel was laid down leading some USN Admirals to resign in protest.

These carriers were supposed to carry heavy (relatively speaking) nuclear-armed strategic bombers whose wingspan was too large to fit on the decks of regular carriers, hence the unobstructed flat deck.

Consequently such a carrier would have very limited onboard defensive armament and piss poor to no radar, relying on its escorts for such things.

They would operate as dedicated heavy bomber carriers inna Task force alongside regular carriers, apparently the Chair force wanted the monopoly on strategic nuclear strike capability and so jewed it to death with the argument that the ships would be too expensive.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a04fb0 No.687215

>>687140

It was pretty retarded. They made all sorts of design compromises in order to operate strategic bombers… which were all totally unnecessary, since the USN had already developed a strategic bomber capable of operating from Midways and were only a year away from adopting it. Had they made it to production they would have actually been no better at their intended role than a Midway, while costing several times as much and being useless dead weight in a conventional war.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

be5289 No.687322

>>687215

>>687210

What exactly would have made them so much more expensive than conventional suppercarriers?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a04fb0 No.687352

>>687322

They were about as big and expensive as a Forrestal, but had half the hangar capacity (with an even smaller magazine) and would have needed to be accompanied at all times by a special command vessel because they didn't have the sensors to track their own air wing.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]